Petro Retakes Lead in Colombian Presidential Election Race


Matthew Bristow
Sat, June 4, 2022, 4:33 PM·1 min read

(Bloomberg) -- Leftist candidate Gustavo Petro retook the lead in Colombia’s presidential election race, according to a Centro Nacional de Consultoria poll published by Semana magazine.

Petro had 44.9% support compared to 41% for construction magnate Rodolfo Hernandez, the survey found. The poll of 2,172 people was conducted between May 31 and June 2 and has a margin of error of 2.1%

A previous CNC poll published May 31 also showed a technical tie, but with Hernandez leading by two percentage points. Petro had been the favorite to become Colombia’s next president, but Hernandez’s unexpected surge to second place in the May 29 first round upset those calculations as other candidates offered him their endorsements.

Petro is “nervous, scared, totally disappointed,” Hernandez told Semana magazine in an interview published Saturday. “I’m breathing down his neck.”

Colombians vote in the presidential runoff on June 19. Petro wants to tax the wealthy and halt oil exploration, while Hernandez is campaigning on a pledge to cut government waste and corruption.

'Surprising results': In Colombia, leftist Petro and populist Hernandez head for run-off

Colombian leftist Gustavo Petro came out on top in the first round of the Andean country's presidential election on Sunday (May 29) and will face a surprise contender - businessman Rodolfo Hernandez - in a second round on June 19. Pascal Drouhaud, Expert on Latin America, gives his analysis.

The left could be poised to take power in Colombia for the first time

Juan Manuel Morales, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Université de Montréal - Yesterday -THE CONVERSATION

Gustavo Petro, a former guerrilla fighter, obtained 40.34 per cent of the vote in the first round of Colombian elections on May 29.


© (AP Photo/Fernando Vergara)Presidential candidate Gustavo Petro, centre and his running mate Francia Marquez, at his right, stand before supporters with Marquez's wife and daughter on election night in Bogota, Colombia.


© (AP Photo/Mauricio Pinzon)Rodolfo Hernandez casts his ballot during presidential elections in Bucaramanga, Colombia.

He will face Rodolfo Hernández, a businessman-turned-politician who won 28.17 per cent of the vote to finish in second place, in the final round on June 19.

These results are striking for three reasons.

First, if Petro prevails, it will be the first time a left-wing candidate has become president in a country traditionally governed by right-wing, elitist parties.

Second, both candidates ran on platforms critical of the political establishment.

Third, Uribismo, the dominant right-wing political movement formed around former president Álvaro Uribe, will not have a candidate in the decisive round of elections for the first time in 20 years.

Rebel turned politician

A former member of the M-19 leftist guerrilla group, Petro started his political career in 1991, just after the organization disarmed as part of a peace process.

In the past 30 years, he’s been a member of congress (from 2006 to 2010 and again from 2018 to 2022), mayor of Bogotá (from 2012 to 2015) and three-time presidential candidate (in 2010, 2018 and 2022).

Born to a middle-class family in a small town in the Caribbean region of Colombia, he is different from the so-called Andean elites that have traditionally dominated the country. If elected, Petro promises, among other things, to stop oil exploration, to provide free public higher education for all and to thoroughly revamp the pension system to increase coverage.

His proposals for radical change have made him popular with younger and lower-income voters, many of whom participated in massive protests in 2021 against the right-wing government of incumbent Iván Duque, who holds the lowest approval ratings of any president in the country’s recent history.


© (AP Photo/Fernando Vergara)Protesters lie on the ground in Bolivar square to protest the killing of civilians during Colombia’s internal conflict in Bogota, Colombia, in August 2021.

Petro’s detractors, on the other hand, decry his past membership in a rebel organization and what they describe as his populist proposals. Critics argue that his tenure as mayor of Bogotá was mired in controversy and that he will try to perpetuate that style of governance if president.

Resistance to Petro’s success, however, should be understood within the historical context of the elitist right-wing dominance of Colombia and the exclusion of left-wing alternatives.

Colombia presidential election: Who is Gustavo Petro? • FRANCE 24 English

Colombians clamoring for "change" gave a leftist ex-guerrilla an historic lead Sunday in a first round of presidential elections that will culminate in a runoff against a maverick outsider in June. 62-year-old Gustavo Petro, a former Bogota mayor, won 40.3% of votes in Sunday's first round.

Colombia’s fear of the left

Colombia has been touted in the past as an example of democratic stability in South America. The only military dictatorship the country suffered in its recent history (1953–57) was short-lived and relatively benign compared to the more repressive regimes of other South American countries.

Unlike most of the continent’s countries, populist leaders haven’t obtained power in Colombia. Also, while the majority of the region turned left in the early 2000s, Colombians elected Álvaro Uribe, a neoconservative leader who prioritized the market and the militarization of security.

This apparent political stability has not come without a price. Elitist parties — both liberal and conservative parties — monopolized power throughout the 20th century and thwarted the rise of left-wing parties and dissident movements.

The front-runner for the presidential elections in the late 1940s, populist leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, was assassinated in 1948, giving way to a dark period known as “La Violencia” that resulted in the massacres of thousands of people. Later, the systematic killing of left-wing leaders, politicians and activists by right-wing paramilitaries and state agents kept power firmly in the hands of traditional elites.


© (AP Photo/William Fernando Martinez)Álvaro Uribe speaks during an interview in Bogota in 2009.

During the eight years that Uribe was president, 6,402 people were the victims of extrajudicial killings perpetrated by the army.

Uribe has been a dominant figure in the country for the last 20 years.

He was president from 2002 to 2010; his defence minister and former ally was voted president in 2010; his chosen candidate, Iván Duque, won his presidential bid in 2018; and Uribe successfully led the campaign against the peace accord with the country’s biggest guerrilla group — FARC — in the 2016 referendum.

The deal was ultimately implemented despite the negative result, and Uribe is now increasingly unpopular among Colombians. Institutional reforms and the 2016 peace accord have also invigorated the left.

After being portrayed for decades as the internal enemy, the left is finally a serious contender for the office of president.


© (AP Photo/Ivan Valencia, File)In this 2016 photo, supporters of the peace process with rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as FARC, celebrate as the Colombian president and a top rebel leader signed a revised peace pact in Bogota.

Future implications

Petro will face important challenges. First, dispersed anti-left political forces will now likely coalesce around the right-wing outsider Hernández, mounting a serious bid for the presidency.

Second, Petro’s party, Pacto Histórico, doesn’t hold a majority in congress and, if elected president, he will have to establish shaky alliances with unlikely partners.

And while his promises for radical change have inspired many, heightened expectations might quickly turn into disappointment or backlash, similar to left-wing leaders Gabriel Boric in Chile and Pedro Castillo in Perú.

Nonetheless, the consolidation of the left as a legitimate and viable electoral option in Colombia is important for the democracy of a country that has suffered decades of politically motivated conflict and high levels of socioeconomic inequality.

These elections can be seen as a sign that the left-right divide in Colombia is moving from armed confrontation to democratic disagreement.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:
Colombia’s murder rate is at an all-time low but its activists keep getting killed

Colombia gives nearly 1 million Venezuelan migrants legal status and right to work

Juan Manuel Morales currently does fieldwork with right-wing activists in Colombia for his dissertation.

Colombia Election Runoff: Leftist Gustavo Petro Leads Presidential Vote But Faces Trump-Like Tycoon

#DEMOCRACYNOW

  

Buttigieg called blaming mass shootings on school design the 'definition of insanity'

salarshani@businessinsider.com (Sarah Al-Arshani) - Yesterday 

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, seen here in Glasgow in November 2021, called blaming mass shootings on the doorway designs in schools 'the definition of insanity' in an interview Sunday. Photo by Ian Forsyth/Getty Images

After the Uvalde elementary school shooting, some lawmakers proposed changing school design.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said it's insane to say school design is to blame.
Democratic lawmakers have pushed for stricter gun control in the aftermath of the shooting.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said it was insane to blame mass shootings on the design of schools.

"And the idea that us being the only developed country where this happens routinely, especially in terms of the mass shootings, is somehow a result of the design of the doorways on our school buildings, is the definition of insanity if not the definition of denial," Buttigieg said during an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos that aired Sunday .

The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, said if he was mayor during a local mass shooting, like the one recently in Uvalde, Texas, the worst part would be having to talk "to families of people who have lost their loved ones and knowing that nothing you can do will bring those loved ones back."

"We have a horrific scourge of gun violence in this country and you know, as mayor -- as every mayor is doing around the country, you take the steps that you can to reduce community violence, to invest in partnerships, to make sure that you've taken the steps you can locally," he said.


In the aftermath of the shooting in Uvalde, where an 18-year-old gunman barricaded himself in a classroom at Robb Elementary School killing 19 children and two adults, some GOP lawmakers suggested mass shootings are a result of faulty school designs or not arming teachers.

During an interview with Fox News' Jesse Watters, Sen. Ted Cruz said adding bulletproof doors and glass to schools would keep them safe.

"Have one door into and out of the school and have that one door, armed police officers at that door," Cruz argued. "If that had happened, if those federal grants had gone to this school, when that psychopath arrived, the armed police officers could have taken him out and we would have 19 children and two teachers still alive."

Many Democratic lawmakers have pushed for stricter gun control measures as more and more mass shootings rattle the country.

Other lawmakers have said resolutions like those Cruz proposed are not useful.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas told Politico he didn't want to revive ideas that haven't worked.

"What we do not need are solutions that have already been tried and done," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation. "I visit schools every day in Kansas City. Almost all of them are fortified. Most of them have armed guards these days, at least one. So these types of solutions they keep saying have been done."

Scalise pins blame on Democrats for gun violence

Brad Dress - Yesterday 


House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) on Sunday blamed Democrats for a rise in gun violence across the U.S., blaming the “defund the police” movement and local authorities for being lax on criminals.

Scalise pins blame on Democrats for gun violence

HE CLAIMED THE SAME THING AFTER BEING SHOT, BLAMED BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN FOR INCITING HIS SHOOTING

In an interview with “Fox News Sunday” guest host John Roberts, Scalise said the reason gun violence and crime rates are so high in the U.S. compared to other countries is because of the “defund the police” movement and loose policies from city district attorneys, who he claimed release prisoners early or hand down lighter sentences to violent criminals.

“You look at America in the last couple of years, you’re seeing this crazy ‘defund the police’ movement. But you’ve also seen a movement that’s been going on for a few years in big cities where the [district attorneys] aren’t even prosecuting criminals until it is a shooting,” he said.

“They’re letting criminals back out on the streets and inevitably what you see is higher rates of crime,” Scalise continued. “And what you’re also seeing is more and more American citizens, law abiding citizens, buying guns to defend themselves.”


Scalise joins a number of Republicans pushing back against gun control measures to curb a rising number of mass shootings and gun violence across the country. A group of bipartisan senators have been meeting to determine if they can come to any agreement on a gun-related measure following the killing of 19 children and two adults at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, last month.

The Louisiana Republican told Roberts on Sunday he does not support red flag laws despite a majority of Americans expressing support for measures that take guns away from individuals a court deems a threat.

Scalise repeated a GOP talking point that Congress should address mental health and other societal factors that cause mass shootings. He said everyday gun violence on the streets, which are less high profile but take far more lives than mass shootings, are rising because Democrats are lax on the “out of control” crime.

“Look at the smash-and-grab crimes. Do you think it’s going to end there?” he told Roberts on Sunday. “If they think they can get away with a crime, they’re not going to be charged, they will go on to commit other crimes. It’s happened in other places. Let’s get back to regular policing.”

4 in 10 Republicans think mass shootings are 'unfortunately something we have to accept as part of a free society': CBS/YouGov poll



Katie Balevic

THE HILL
Sun, June 5, 2022

Some 44% of Republicans say mass shootings are "something we have to accept as part of a free society," a poll found.

The poll found that a majority of Democrats and Independents said shootings are preventable "if we really tried."

The survey comes after a string of mass shootings have again prompted Congress to assess gun control.

More than 4 in 10 Republicans think mass shootings are inevitable in a "free society," according to a new poll by CBS News and YouGov.

The survey results came on the heels of a string of mass shootings across the country that have prompted Congress to once again consider legislation on gun control.

One of the questions in the poll asked respondents if they feel that mass shootings are "unfortunately something we have to accept as part of a free society" or "something we can prevent and stop if we really tried."

In response, 44% of Republicans said mass shootings are inevitable "as part of a free society." Meanwhile, 85% of Democrats and 73% of Independents said mass shootings are preventable "if we really tried."

The survey had a sample size of 2,021 US adults that were interviewed between June 1 and June 3, per CBS News, which noted the margin of error is ±2.6 points.

Following the shooting in Uvalde, President Joe Biden insisted that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a "rational Republican" who could agree to gun control measures, despite the party's longtime refusal to seriously entertain policy changes on firearms.

McConnell signaled his willingness for Republican senators to work with Democrats on a bipartisan push for gun safety legislation, but he did not endorse any specific proposals. The Minority Leader said he had "encouraged" Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, to talk to key Democrats "who are interested in trying to get an outcome that's directly related to the problem."

Days later, a conservative radio host tweeted that Cornyn was "open to making gun laws more restrictive." Cornyn responded to the tweet, saying it was "not gonna happen."

In the CBS/YouGov poll, respondents from political parties across the board seemed to agree that it is unlikely Congress will "pass any laws in the next few months that will make significant changes to gun policy."

A total of 66% of Democrats, 72% of Independents, and 71% of Republicans indicated that they think it is "not very likely" or "not at all likely" that Congress passes significant, new gun policies in the coming months.

B&D CHILD ABUSE

Legal claims shed light on founder of faith group tied to Amy Coney Barrett

Stephanie Kirchgaessner US Investigations Correspondent
Mon, June 6, 2022

Photograph: Barbara Allison/AP

The founder of the People of Praise, a secretive charismatic Christian group that counts supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, was described in a sworn affidavit filed in the 1990s as exerting almost total control over one of the group’s female members, including making all decisions about her finances and dating relationships.

The court documents also described alleged instances of a sexualized atmosphere in the home of the founder, Kevin Ranaghan, and his wife, Dorothy Ranaghan.

The description of the Ranaghans and accusations involving their intimate behavior were contained in a 1993 proceeding in which a woman, Cynthia Carnick, said that she did not want her five minor children to have visitations with their father, John Roger Carnick, who was then a member of the People of Praise, in the Ranaghan household or in their presence, because she believed it was not in her children’s “best interest”. Cynthia Carnick also described inappropriate incidents involving the couple and the Ranaghan children. The matter was eventually settled between the parties.

Barrett, 50, lived with Dorothy and Kevin Ranaghan in their nine-bedroom South Bend, Indiana, home while she attended law school, according to public records. The justice – who was then known as Amy Coney – graduated from Notre Dame Law School in 1997 and two years later married her husband, Jesse Barrett, who also appears to have lived in the Ranaghan household. There is no indication that Amy Coney Barrett lived in the house at the time when the Carnick children were visiting or witnessed any of the alleged behavior described in the court documents.

The examination of the People of Praise’s history and attitude towards women comes as a majority of the supreme court – including Barrett – appear poised to reverse Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that made abortion legal across the US.

Cynthia Carnick stated in the documents that she had witnessed Dorothy Ranaghan tie the arms and legs of two of the Ranaghans’ daughters – who were three and five at the time the incidents were allegedly witnessed – to their crib with a necktie. She also said that the Ranaghans allegedly practiced “sexual displays” in front of their children and other adults, such as Dorothy Ranaghan lying with her clothes on and “rocking” on top of Kevin Ranaghan in their TV room.

Cynthia Carnick – who no longer uses Carnick as her last name – declined to comment but said that she stood by the statement she made at the time.

In an affidavit that supported Cynthia Carnick’s written statement, a woman named Colette Humphrey said she had lived with Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan from 1973 to 1978, when she was a member of the People of Praise, and confirmed she had witnessed incidents of inappropriate sexual expression.

Humphrey also wrote in her statement: “When I was part of the People of Praise I was in full life submission to Kevin Ranaghan, under full obedience to him and he exercised this authority over most areas of my life. For example, we were ‘in common’ financially, which meant that I had to hand over my paycheck to Kevin Ranaghan and he would decide on how that paycheck would be used. Kevin Ranaghan controlled my dating relationships, deciding who and when I should date.”

Humphrey – who now uses a different surname – did not respond to a request for comment left at her residence.

A third woman, Susan Reynolds, said in a sworn statement that she lived in the Ranaghan household, and that she had at one point been “shocked” to hear that Kevin Ranaghan sometimes showered with two of his daughters, who were ten or eleven at the time. She said in her statement she was later told by Dorothy Ranaghan that Kevin had “decided to quit showering with them” after Reynolds had questioned Dorothy about the practice.

The Ranaghans did not file any affidavits in connection to the 1993 proceeding, to which they were not a party.

Dorothy Ranaghan declined to comment to the Guardian. Kevin Ranaghan said: “These allegations are nearly three decades old, outlandish, and completely without merit. We have a loving and affectionate marriage of 55 years and have welcomed dozens of people into our home as part of our religious faith and commitment to service to God.”

A spokesperson representing the Ranaghans sent an emailed statement to the Guardian on behalf of the couple’s six adult children. It said they were “insulted by false and misleading statements about our childhood relationships with our parents from decades ago”. “We are part of a loving family and bringing these preposterous claims up now is hurtful and irresponsible.”

People of Praise said in a statement: “Since 1967 Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan have been known and respected for their tireless work sharing the free gift of the Holy Spirit with hundreds of thousands of people around the world. We are proud that they are members and leaders of the People of Praise.”

The claims about the Ranaghans’ behavior and Kevin Ranaghans’ alleged control over at least one former member of People of Praise is coming to light two years after the Guardian first reported that the group had hired a law firm to conduct an “independent” investigation into decades-old claims of sexual abuse against minors by some members of the Christian faith group.

Since then, at least one alleged victim who cooperated with the investigation has been told that the inquiry into sexual abuse claims by the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has been concluded, but that a written report of its findings would not be released to alleged victims or to the public.

When one alleged victim of sexual abuse, who spoke to the Guardian but asked not to be named, asked about the investigation into her own case, lawyer Diane Doolittle of Quinn Emanuel allegedly told her that at least some of the individuals who had been interviewed about the allegations “didn’t recall the details” and that it had been “difficult” to get information.

The South Bend-based group is a covenanted community, which means that members have entered a “covenant commitment” to live together – sometimes families and single members can live in a single household – and are expected to share portions of their income and regularly attend hours-long private prayer meetings, which can include exorcisms and speaking in tongues. The group has about 1,700 members, is mostly Catholic but is open to all Christians, and espouses conservative views on gender. It opposes same-sex marriage and only men can serve on its board of governors or as coordinators, who lead different branches of the community.

The Washington Post reported in 2020 that a People of Praise 2010 directory showed Barrett served as a “handmaid”, a female adviser to other female members. Barrett also served on the Trinity Schools board, whose members must belong to People of Praise, from 2015 to 2017, at a time when the schools effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents and – according to the AP – “made it plain that openly gay and lesbian teachers weren’t welcome in the classroom”.

Doolittle did not respond to an emailed request for comment. People of Praise said in a statement: “The independent review by Quinn Emmanuel was concluded more than a year ago, and meetings regarding the review have taken place.”

The Guardian sought a comment from Amy Coney Barrett’s chambers through the supreme court press office, but did not receive a response.

In June 2021, four victims of alleged sexual or physical abuse in the People of Praise published an open letter in the South Bend Tribune calling for reforms within the faith group. The suggested reforms included public acknowledgment that there had been a “systemic failure to protect People of Praise children from abuse”, public naming of all individuals who have been “credibly accused of abuse” or “concealing abuse within People of Praise or its schools”, and placing an equal number of women in the highest leadership positions in the group, and giving them an “equal vote in all of the group’s decisions”. The letter noted that the Catholic church has publicly named individuals who have credibly been accused of abuse.

Barrett, who is Catholic, has never publicly been asked about her membership in People of Praise, which first came to light in a New York Times article in 2017, after Barrett, a former law professor at Notre Dame, was nominated by Donald Trump to serve as a judge on the US court of appeal for the seventh circuit. She was confirmed and then later, in 2020, was nominated and confirmed to serve on the supreme court after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Barrett has said that her religious convictions, including her previously stated views opposing Roe v Wade, had no bearing on her role as a judge and would not affect her impartiality.

The justice’s involvement in People of Praise became known publicly in 2017 only after one former member, Kevin Connolly, said he brought the story to the New York Times. He did so, he told the Guardian, because he believed it was important for the public to be aware of and understand her affiliation with the group. He was also one of the four authors of the open letter sent to the South Bend Tribune.

Connolly, who is the brother of the People of Praise’s chief spokesperson, Sean Connolly, told the Washington Post in 2021 that his father, who was then a member of People of Praise, was violent and once kicked him in the face when he was 10, leaving him with a black eye.

Connolly came forward, he said, after he heard of several other incidents of physical abuse among his friends growing up. Neither Connolly’s father nor his brother responded to the Post’s questions at the time the alleged abuse was reported in the Washington Post.

“Growing up in the People of Praise, I knew that they held beliefs that would be extremists to the vast majority of practicing Catholics, including on gay rights and women’s rights. I looked at the number of people living in those states covered by the seventh circuit court, and then projected those numbers over a lifetime appointment. It was well into the tens of millions. That’s when I brought the story to the New York Times in 2017. As a supreme court justice now, her extreme views may affect upwards of half a billion Americans in her lifetime,” he told the Guardian.

• In the US, call or text the Childhelp abuse hotline on 800-422-4453. In the UK, the NSPCC offers support to children on 0800 1111, and adults concerned about a child on 0808 800 5000. The National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) offers support for adult survivors on 0808 801 0331. In Australia, children, young adults, parents and teachers can contact the Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or Bravehearts on 1800 272 831, and adult survivors can contact Blue Knot Foundation on 1300 657 380. Other sources of help can be found at Child Helplines International

Interracial Couples On How They Talk About Race & Racism

R29 Team - Thursday

Thanks for reading Can We Talk?, a sex and relationships column that aims to tackle the burning questions about sex, dating, relationships, and breakups that you’re too afraid to ask your partner — or maybe even your besties. Last time, relationship therapist Moraya Seeger DeGeare, LMFT, helped a reader dealing with racist in-laws. This week, we heard from Refinery29 readers about how communicating about race impacted their relationships in the face of microaggressions and racism from family and friends.

Vanessa, 31, San Antonio, TX

“​​I’m a product of a mixed-race marriage, with one of my parents being Black and the other Asian, so I thought I knew what I was getting into when I fell for my now-husband, R. Little did I know… My partner is white with Dutch and German ancestry. We come from different backgrounds — him from oil people and farmers. Although very Americanized, I was not even born in the United States and moved here as a toddler, following my military dad.

“Our relationship has evolved so much over the years. But, by far, I think the biggest adjustment we’ve made together has to do with how we talk about how he sees the world versus how I do. My husband is a very open and welcoming person. He believes in respect for others and will not use their race, background, or sexuality against them. But he also just didn’t see how many people do have those prejudices. I found myself jealous that he could just exist in the world freely, while I moved through it differently.

“When we were first dating, all of R’s friends were white. The gaming, the “Dungeons & Dragons” types. These friends, although they were always kind to me, often shared videos and jokes about other races, women, and LGBTQ+ folks. Additionally, one friend was a police officer and would disparage Black Lives Matter. (Looking back, my now-husband would agree that the situation was not ideal, and express that he’s not anything like those friends.) It was tough reconciling the fact that the guy I was dating was surrounded by a community I didn’t want to be in.

“When it’s just us two, we’ve always lived in our own world — we have our own rules. Heck, we even have our own language. But the “real” world was uncomfortable. I’ve never believed in going into a relationship to change a person. But as our relationship continued, my concerns grew louder and louder. Everything reached a pinnacle when Donald Trump ran for president in 2016. I vehemently hated what he stood for. Once R. joked he was voting for Trump and I tried to break up with him. I didn’t care if he was different from me in a million other ways, but knew we had to have shared values. We talked about this all night, and I told him: I’m not going to have a family with someone who is complacent with a racist president. I can sit at a cousin’s house while listening to Antifa musings on Fox News. I can stomach a Thanksgiving dinner with a grandmother in a Trump jacket. What I won’t deal with is a partner who wouldn’t support their family. I really stressed that if we had kids, they would be brown children, and people of color move differently from him in this world.

“After that, we talked more openly and frequently about race relations. He began to point out moments when he felt something was potentially a racist incident. Without me asking, he also decided to cut out people who he felt didn’t have shared values with, and I did the same. Since then, we have cultivated a large network of diverse friends.

“Before our big Trump-inspired talk, sometimes I felt like I was talking to a wall. R. would listen to what I was saying and was sympathetic then, but, after that argument and working on himself, he’s truly tried to be empathetic. He sees that his experience is so different from mine, my Asian mother’s, and my Black father’s. He tries to be more thoughtful and mindful in his everyday life. We both work to be honest and realistic in our relationship.

“Growing up, my parents actually didn’t talk much about their mixed-race marriage. While my husband and I talk about it a lot, we also live in a world where it’s hard not to. We plan on discussing race with our future kids, too. We also want to adopt, so we’ll have a lot to talk about.”

Zara*, 27, California

“I am Asian and my husband is white; we are both pretty liberal. As a couple, we’ve always discussed the differences in our family dynamics, but as time went on, we started having more difficult conversations about what it means to be in an interracial relationship and how to navigate each other’s issues (racism, privilege, etc). However, my husband’s family is very conservative — they are Fox News enthusiasts. During dinner one night, at the height of COVID and with the rise of Asian hate crimes happening all around the country, my father-in-law referred to COVID as the “China flu” and kept pushing the conspiracy that COVID was created in “a Chinese lab.” I stopped the conversation, said I found the sentiment hurtful, and pleaded with my father-in-law to stop calling it that. For one, it’s not a flu and, two, because he’s perpetuating further Asian hate and that language is fueling anti-Asian hate crimes across the country. I explained to him that I worried about my parents’ safety daily because of hate perpetuated by using language like this against Asian Americans. He vowed never to use the word again, but honestly my relationship with them has never been the same ever since.

“My husband was so dumbfounded about the conspiracy theory his father was repeating that he didn’t hear his dad call it what he did. My partner and I talked in great detail how it made me feel and he was upset on my behalf; he noted that he’d talk to his dad about it and try to get some clarity on the situation. There was no tension or animosity between us, as we spent the time to communicate about the issue at hand and allowed each other to have the space to talk about how we felt about the situation. But we are a lot more aware about what we talk about around my in-laws now. We try to steer away from controversial conversations and just keep it very superficial and light. ​​There’s not much depth to my relationship with them, not the way my husband has with my family. The sad thing is, I used to care a lot about trying to have that close relationship, but now I don’t really anymore.

“I do have worries about our future children and how my in-laws’ language and behavior is going to affect our family in that case. However, when that time comes, I know I need to sit down and discuss boundaries with my husband and have him set those with his parents.”

KM, 50, St. Louis, MO

“My husband is very committed to equity and inclusion. He’s a good person, and falling for him was so easy. But we have issues that go way back to before we were married when my white mother-in-law and her sisters went online and started “digging into my past.” They tried to find anything they could to discredit me, a Black woman, to my husband.

“Things came to a boiling point after we got married. I was pregnant after three miscarriages on his sister’s wedding weekend. My MIL aggressively told me not to upstage the bride because I was pregnant. I was confused because I had no idea where this came from or why she would even say something like that when I was having a hard pregnancy and had lost others. My husband later confronted her, and they got into an argument.

“By this time, she’d already flat-out told me she wasn’t going to be a babysitter or change any of my baby’s diapers, even though I’d never asked her to. She also wondered aloud how dark our baby would be before he was born. I told her that my child will be beautiful and well-loved. My MIL treated our little one okay until my sister-in-law had her sons. I overheard her say she was glad she finally had a “real” grandchild. When I asked her what that meant, she stammered, and I was done.

“I usually tell my husband to talk to his mom before I have to check her. My conversations with him about her behavior are pretty straightforward now because there’s no reason to treat our situation with kid gloves. When I first noticed her behavior, I felt bad that I had to bring it to his attention and tell him how awkward it was for me, but these conversations have evolved over the years. Just like any relationship, in an interracial relationship, you have to be a team with a united front, mutual love, and respect, but I feel the added pressure to make our relationship successful because people don’t expect interracial relationships to succeed in our divided society.

“My husband has stood up for us many times. He’s tried to talk to his mother rationally. He’s had arguments with her. He’s even stopped her as she said things that were hurtful. We’ve learned over the years that she’s got her own issues and she’s the only person that can work through them. But it bothers me that he still seeks approval from his racist mom at times, and I think it’s a shame he still has to talk to her about this at all after all these years. At this point, I’ve come to believe his mom is just going to be his racist mom. It just makes me sad that my husband has the mother he has.

“I’ve tried to mend this relationship in different ways over the years, but I’m at the point where I’ve stopped— I can be cordial, but I know that that is the extent of our relationship. And in the end, she’s the one missing out.”

Sasha*, 34, Portland, OR

“I’m a first-generation Caribbean-American. My mother is Black and my father is Indian. My husband is white and from England. We’ve been together for nine years. I’ve experienced several micro-aggressive situations with my in-laws that’s made my relationship with them strained at times. My father-in-law and my husband’s step-mom think that just because they “have Black friends,” they can make thoughtless remarks. Last year, during a family trip, they joked and perpetuated racist ideas about Ethiopians and poverty. I was shocked and immediately uncomfortable. I told my husband and he talked to them and told them this wasn’t okay, but they refused to apologize because they said it was a joke. I was so upset, we paid for a hotel because it was so uncomfortable being with them. They’d even begun to give me the silent treatment until, eventually, my father-in-law told me he was sorry, after urging from my husband.

“I’m the first Black person to join their family. They’re not bad people and they don’t intend to be malicious, but they’re willingly ignorant and haven’t ever taken the time to understand what it’s like to be the only person of color in the family. I feel like I have the weight of my entire race on my shoulders when they make ignorant comments. I don’t want to cause contention, but there are times I can’t hold my tongue, though I try to pick my battles. Sometimes, I feel responsible for ‘disturbing the peace,’ or causing issues between my husband and his parents. It can be an isolating feeling and I’ve often cried or gotten frustrated about it.

“All this has even caused conflict between my husband and me. Sometimes, when we’re alone, I bring up offensive things his family says. His automatic response is to defend them or minimize the situation by trying to clarify what they meant. This makes me feel worse because, in those moments, I feel misunderstood. He and his family are very conflict-averse. They’d rather sweep something under the rug than have a conversation that might be tense. Due to this, sometimes when I ask my husband to confront them about things they’ve said, he complains or has a slight attitude, though he has ultimately tried to talk to them about this several times before. I used to get angry with him and we’d argue, but now I focus more on trying to explain to him why a comment or “joke” made me uncomfortable. I try to have a conversation rather than an argument because, during the latter, feelings and emotions can easily take over and make a situation more volatile. I’ve realized if I want to handle things more productively, I need to explain the situation from my point of view first.

“I’m not sure if his parents will ever understand and it makes me worried for our future children. As a mixed-race person, I know you often feel confused about where you fit in as a child. But my family taught me to love who I am and appreciate all of my different parts. That’s how I want to raise my children. The last thing I want is for them to question or feel conflicted about the perception of any part of who they are by anyone — especially their grandparents, who will probably be an influential part of their upbringing. Simple comments can unknowingly create shame or self-hatred and I want to be conscious of that. I’m not saying that will happen, but words can sometimes create ripple effects in kids that we’re not even aware of.

“My husband and I tip-toed around the race topic early on in our relationship. I actively avoided it because I felt it could be uncomfortable. I started having racial discussions with him only after incidents with his family and when the police brutality cases were highlighted in the media. I’ve learned throughout my relationship that race should be a subject for you to discuss openly and often, with patience and a willingness to understand — not only when an issue arises. It shouldn’t be viewed as a taboo subject. It’s the reality of living in America and it’s the reality of your relationship.”

*Names have been changed.

Interviews have been condensed for clarity and length.

Amazon is 'obstructing' congressional probe of Illinois warehouse tornado deaths, AOC and other House Dems say

wsoon@insider.com (Weilun Soon) -

© (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)A heavily damaged Amazon fulfillment center is seen Saturday, Dec. 11, 2021, in Edwardsville, Ill. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Last December, a tornado tore through an Amazon warehouse in Illinois, killing six workers.

In March, House members launched an investigation into Amazon's severe weather safety practices.

 
But, they said, Amazon failed to comply and accused the company of "obstructing" the investigation.

Congressional Democrats have slammed Amazon, saying the company has made it difficult to investigate whether its labor practices resulted in workers' deaths after a tornado struck one of its Illinois warehouses last December.

In March, in response to the incident, House Oversight Committee members Carolyn Maloney and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri reached out to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy for information on Amazon's severe weather policies. They gave Jassy and Amazon an April 14 deadline to hand over documentation.

But weeks after the deadline, the group said they still hadn't received any documentation from Amazon. In a letter dated June 1, the Maloney, Ocasio-Cortez, and Bush reached out to Jassy again, noting that "nearly seven weeks have passed since the April 2022 deadline, yet Amazon still has not produced any of the key categories of documents identified by Committee staff."

Amazon "has failed to meaningfully comply with the Committee's requests, obstructing the Committee's investigation," the group wrote.

Amazon now has until June 8 to submit the documents. "If Amazon fails to do so, the Committee will have no choice but to consider alternative measures to obtain full compliance," the letter said.

Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel told Bloomberg on Friday that the company was surprised by the letter because it had provided more than 1,500 pages of documents to assist in the investigation.

"As we have done from the start, we will continue to work with committee staff on further document production — which includes the most recent materials we shared on June 1," Nantel said.

Amazon did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

THE LAW IN CANADA 

A tornado ripped through an Amazon warehouse in Edwardsville, Illinois, on December 10, killing six workers. In the days following the deadly event, the workers' families, their coworkers, lawmakers, and investors questioned Amazon's decision not to evacuate workers prior to the storm. Two warehouse workers told Insider they were expected to report for work even though a tornado warning was in place.

The family of one worker filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Amazon.

In response to the lawsuit, company spokesperson Nantel told Insider: "We believe our team did the right thing as soon as a warning was issued, and they worked to move people to safety as quickly as possible."

"Severe weather watches are common in this part of the country and, while precautions are taken, are not cause for most businesses to close down," she continued.

Investigators from the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration said in April the online retailer met "minimal federal safety guidelines" at the warehouse. However, they added, "the company should make improvements to further protect workers and contract drivers in future emergencies."

Last month, a group of Amazon investors submitted a proposal at its annual shareholder meeting requesting that the company report on workplace safety issues at its warehouses. That motion was voted down by shareholders with only 43.7% of votes in favor, according to Amazon's May 25 SEC filing.

New program offered in Edmonton connects coding to traditional Indigenous knowledge

Kashmala Fida Mohatarem - 

Traditional knowledge is meeting up with technology and coding in an innovative program recently introduced to Edmonton's Indigenous youth.

The INDIGital program is a four-week course created by the Indigenous Friends Association, a not-for-profit organization. The program's goals are to teach digital literacy to Indigenous youth while connecting technologies with Indigenous knowledge.

"It is meant to be an empowering class," said Danielle Paradis, program manager for INDIGital.

Previously offered in Saskatchewan and Ontario, the program held its first session at the Edmonton Public Library, starting on May 9 and ending in early June.

INDIGital offers students a chance to learn about coding, build their own websites and design digital content, all while learning about Indigenous history and teachings.

Paradis said the program helps youth understand how technologies have existed within the worldview of Indigenous communities.

"A lot of times Indigenous people are portrayed as people who've existed in the past, not people who are real and present," Paradis said.

"A lot of this program focuses on understanding that Indigenous people have always had technology."

She said they also explore where the current technological landscape is lacking when it comes to Indigenous people.

Activists and privacy watchdogs have talked about how facial recognition software and other AI disproportionately target Black and Indigenous communities.


Paradis said it's important that people from those communities learn to participate and create, to make technologies work for them.


© Danielle Paradis/Indigenous Friends Association

Serenity Jacko makes a robot move within a fixed pattern she drew during an INDIGital workshop at the Edmonton Public Library.

Serenity Jacko, a student in the program, learned about it through Facebook.

She liked the idea of learning to code — not only so technologies she already used made more sense, but to have an extra skill that would prove useful on a resumé.

Previously, she said, she felt "completely lost" when someone was bringing up coding language.

"I don't want to feel like that," she said. "It would be nice to at least have an idea."

Jacko and other students learned programming languages, how to design a website, and were introduced to beading. They also learned how to move robots within a fixed pattern using code.

Paradis said the workshop was created in part to help improve Indigenous people's relationship with technology.

"A lot of times Indigenous people, if they're growing up, say rural or remote areas, they're often taught that technology is not a good thing," she said.

Even though technology plays an important role in these communities — " Facebook groups are huge on reserves… and that's where, especially during COVID, everybody was gathering and getting information" — she said a lot of communities are apprehensive about tech.

Programs like INDIGital are important, she said, because they can teach how technology can be useful for these communities and also how to use it safely and effectively.

The INDIGital workshop has run in other parts of Canada. The Edmonton program was a first. Paradis said the hope is to run another workshop in the city next year.

"We do want to be a multi-year presence in Edmonton. I think we have a very vibrant Indigenous community," she said.

People interested in attending the workshops can do so on the Indigenous Friends Association website. Paradis said there is a waiting list but once workshops come up they will reach out to individuals to see what works.

University tragedy brings to light 'dinosaur' student issue

AFP - Yesterday 


After four people died in a Bolivian university stampede, an investigation into the role of a 52-year-old student has relaunched the debate over "dinosaur" students who never graduate.


© JORGE BERNAL

Almost a quarter of the students at the San Andres university in La Paz have been at the higher education institution for more than 11 years

On May 9, someone provoked panic in a crowded amphitheatre when they threw a tear gas grenade during a student assembly at the Tomas Frias university in the southern city of Potosi.

Four people died and 70 were injured in the ensuing stampede.

Soon after, it was revealed that student union leader Max Mendoza, 52, had played a part in organizing the assembly, sparking further controversy.

In his 33 years as a student, Mendoza has never graduated, claimed legislator Hector Arce, who brandished a notebook of the union leader's marks: since 1989 he had failed more than 200 subjects and received a grade of zero more than 100 times.


© JORGE BERNAL

Students at free public universities benefit from discounted health care and those in leadership roles also pick up a salary

The president of the Bolivian University Confederation, Mendoza is alleged to have called the student general assembly in a bid to promote the interest of fellow leaders loyal to him.


© JORGE BERNAL

San Andres university rector Oscar Heredia is worried about the trend in eternal students

The meeting turned fractious before the smoke bomb was thrown.

Mendoza was placed in pre-trial detention on May 21, accused of several offenses including abuse of office and embezzlement.

- 'Freeloaders' -

But Mendoza's case is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the thousands of "dinosaurs" staying on seemingly forever at university.

The term has been used for years in universities before it caught on at a national level, says Beymar Quisberth, a sociology student at the San Francisco Xabier university in Sucre.


© JORGE BERNAL

University students can access cheap health care making it an attractive option for many working people to continue registering as students

According to local media, many student leaders drag out their studies in order to maintain their roles and keep the associated benefits.


It is free to attend public universities in Bolivia, and students receive discounted health care.

But students also take on management roles that include salaries.

Mendoza pockets a monthly salary of 21,869 bolivianos (around $3,150), similar to that of a rector, for his role as head of the executive committee that coordinates Bolivia's higher education institutions.

Another person accused of being a "dinosaur," Alvaro Quelali, 37, is a student leader at the San Andres university in La Paz and has apparently been studying for 20 years.

In Bolivia "it's a business being a university manager. Why study (and graduate) when you have so many benefits," said Arce.

Many students have jobs and professions outside of university and merely register as a student in order to maintain their benefits, with no intention of actually studying.

Even if they fail the final exams, they can repeat the trick the next year.

"They're freeloaders, it's a disgrace," said Gabriela Paz, 20, a student at the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences.

"These people stay at university to keep receiving handouts," added Mateo Siles, 21.

- 'Deep crisis' -

San Andres university rector Oscar Heredia says it is not just student leaders but also ordinary students who remain at university for many years.

Of the university's more than 81,000 students, 23 percent have been there more than 11 years and 6.7 percent more than 20 years.

One thousand have even been there more than 30 years and around 100 more than 40 years.

"It's something that worries us, but it's a broad issue," Heredia told AFP.

Karen Apaza, an engineering student at San Andres, says she is campaigning against "these dinosaurs who live off the university for more than 20 years."

It is a familiar scene around the country.

The Gabriel Rene Moreno university in the city of Santa Cruz has 90,000 students, of whom three percent have been there more than 10 years.

Guido Zambrana, the professor of medicine at San Andres, says it is important "to recognize that we are going through a deep crisis."

He says it's time to wipe the slate clean and "dismantle the whole structure of corruption, bad management and the co-management (between students and teachers) that has been deteriorating for decades."

"University is obsolete, it's anachronistic and does not meet the current needs" of Bolivia.

jac/fj/lab/ybl/bc/mdl/des

WHEN I WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE ONE OF MY ROOMATES WAS A DINOSAUR STUDENT, LIKE MANY ADULT STUDENTS, HE WORKED SPRING AND SUMMER AND WINTERED AT THE U OF L. THIS WAS THE REALITY OF CONSTRUCTION WORK IN AREA

New Orleans Starbucks store 1st in Louisiana to vote union

A Starbucks location is shown, Tuesday, April 26, 2022. Employees at a Starbucks store in New Orleans are the first of the coffee giant's locations in Louisiana to unionize, voting 11-1 in favor of joining a union on Friday and Saturday, June 3-4, 2022. 

AP Photo/Matt Rourke


Sun, June 5, 2022,

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Employees at a Starbucks store in New Orleans voted to form a union, becoming the first of the coffee giant's locations in Louisiana to unionize.

Ballots were cast Friday and Saturday 11-1 in favor of joining Workers United, which represents the unionized Starbucks stores, WWNO-FM reported. Two ballots were challenged, the station said.

The New Orleans vote is the latest in a series of wins for labor at Starbucks stores across the nation, and comes about a week after workers in Birmingham, Alabama, voted 27-to-1 to become that state’s first unionized Starbucks.

Barista Caitlyn Pierce and others wanted to unionize because of regular shifts where they were overworked and understaffed, the station reported.

“I’m feeling amazing,” Pierce said. “This is something we worked so hard for and it’s just great to finally get here.”

Starbucks has fought unionization efforts, saying its 9,000 company-owned U.S. stores function best when Starbucks works directly with employees, which the company calls “partners.”

In a statement Sunday, Starbucks said it was “listening and learning,” and added, “We respect our partner’s right to organize.” The statement didn’t say whether the company would challenge the vote.

Billie Nyx, lead organizer of the union campaign, was fired in mid-May for closing the store early without permission from higher management. Nyx is contesting the dismissal, saying it was in retaliation for union advocacy.

Nyx said they will meet with their lawyer and gather those still working at the store to solidify specific demands for the contract negotiations.

To win the changes they seek — like better pay and more reliable schedules — unionized stores must still sit down with Starbucks and negotiate a contract. It’s a painstaking process that can take years.

A Starbucks in Buffalo, New York, became the first in the United States to unionize late last year. Based in Seattle, the company has more than 34,000 stores worldwide.

Did SpaceX Really Save Taxpayers $40 Billion?

By Rich Smith - Jun 5, 2022 

The Motley Fool

KEY POINTS

John Hyten, former vice chairman of the joint chiefs general, says competition has saved the government $40 billion in space contracts.

SpaceX is a big part of the reason NASA and the government are able to get these savings.

And now they want to save even more.

If so, then SpaceX also cost somebody $40 billion in sales.

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
-- Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen

Now, there's some dispute about whether the late Illinois Sen. Dirksen actually said the quote above in just those words, but whether he did or he didn't, one thing's certain: Even if a billion isn't quite "real money," $40 billion certainly is.

This is why, when NASA Administrator Bill Nelson (himself a former senator) told a Senate subcommittee last month that price competition from SpaceX helped save taxpayers $40 billion on the cost of military space launches, well, as an investor that got my attention right away.

IMAGE SOURCE: SPACEX.

Quotable senators

Nelson was testifying before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, and talking about what funding NASA needs to accomplish all the missions it wants to accomplish. Specifically, what he told the subcommittee was this:

"General Hyten, [then] the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told me last year ... the fact that we have competition now on going to space -- just for the military -- has saved them $40 billion in launch costs."

Now, $40 billion is a big number, and it's not entirely clear how Hyten came up with it. Still, SpaceX has been launching government satellites at significant discounts to the prices charged by space companies such as Boeing (BA -0.89%), Lockheed Martin (LMT 0.36%), and Northrop Grumman (NOC 3.35%) for about a decade. Add in savings from SpaceX developing new products -- the Falcon Heavy rocket, for example, the Starship reusable megarocket, and even a lunar lander -- largely on its own, or with minimal support from NASA, and the $40 billion figure could be close to accurate.

And this wasn't Nelson's only revelation during his testimony.

In the context of thanking Congress for supporting a requested 9% increase in NASA's 2023 budget to $26 billion, Nelson described his plan to develop a second lunar lander, such that NASA would have two landers to choose from "somewhere in the 2027 timeframe." This second lander contract will be awarded as a fixed price contract -- and that was the point Nelson continued to hammer on throughout his testimony.
Fixed-price versus cost-plus

"The old way of doing things was always cost-plus," explained Nelson, discussing a form of government contract that reimburses a contractor for the costs it incurs -- even if those costs exceed the price it bid -- and then adds a guaranteed measure of profit on top of that (the plus). Problem is, this kind of contract doesn't require a defense contractor to work efficiently and keep costs in check.

In practice, this has resulted in project delays and cost overruns that cost both NASA and taxpayers money. Nelson cited the recent example of a contract awarded to Bechtel in 2019, to build a rocket-launching platform in 44 months for $383 million. As problems cropped up, this evolved into a contract to build the same launcher in 47 months for $402 million. Sad to say, this is not an isolated example, and Nelson told the Senate that in fact, cost-plus contracts have "been a plague on us in the past."

But Nelson says NASA is "committed" to managing its costs better, and has "been moving to fixed price where we can ... really crack down on [cost-plus contracts]." Similar to how consumers shop in a store, a fixed-price contract requires contractors to bid a certain price for a certain service, and then receive that price when the service is performed -- whether it actually costs the contractor more (or less) than its bid to perform the work.

What it means for investors

Granted, this sounds like common sense. When you or I go shopping, we almost always pay a fixed price to fill our shopping carts. But this idea is kind of new for NASA. If Nelson is right and it lowers the cost of space launch, this will save NASA money, and mean taxpayers get more bang for their space bucks -- which may increase taxpayer approval of, and support for NASA.

The switch from cost-plus to fixed-price does, however, have implications for investors in space stocks.

Consider that every government contract SpaceX wins at a discounted price is a contract lost by competitors like Northrop, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin. Moreover, every contract that these publicly traded space companies must bid low on, to beat competition from SpaceX, means less revenue for them.

Going forward, Nelson says he wants more NASA contracts to be priced this way. And this implies that going forward, Northrop could see its 10.6% operating profit margin in its space segment shrink. Lockheed could earn less than its present 9.3% margin -- and Boeing, which only earns a 5.8% margin in its defense, space, and security division business, could be at even greater risk of margin shrinkage.

This is the policy NASA will pursue in the future. Investors in the space industry should start planning for smaller profits today.

Lynching preachers: How black pastors resisted Jim Crow and white pastors incited racial violence


Malcolm Brian Foley, PhD Candidate in Religion - Historical Studies, Baylor University
Sun, June 5, 2022

THE CONVERSATION


A funeral held in July 1945 for two victims of the Ku Klux Klan, George Dorsey and his sister, Dorothy Dorsey Malcolm, of Walton County, Georgia, held at the Mt. Perry Baptist Church Sunday. Bettman via Getty

White lynch mobs in America murdered at least 4,467 people between 1883 and 1941, hanging, burning, dismembering, garroting and blowtorching their victims.

Their violence was widespread but not indiscriminate: About 3,300 of the lynched were black, according to the most recent count by sociologists Charles Seguin and David Rigby. The remaining dead were white, Mexican, of Mexican descent, Native American, Chinese or Japanese.

Such numbers, based on verifiable newspaper reports, represent a minimum. The full human toll of racial lynching may remain ever beyond reach.

Religion was no barrier for these white murderers, as I’ve discovered in my research on Christianity and lynch mobs in the Reconstruction-era South. White preachers incited racial violence, joined the Ku Klux Klan and lynched black people.

Sometimes, the victim was a pastor.

Buttressing white supremacy

When considering American racial terror, the first question to answer is not how a lynch mob could kill a man of the cloth but why white lynch mobs killed at all.

The typical answer from Southern apologists was that only black men who raped white women were targeted. In this view, lynching was “popular justice” – the response of an aggrieved community to a heinous crime.

Journalists like Ida B. Wells and early sociologists like Monroe Work saw through that smokescreen, finding that only about 20% to 25% of lynching victims were alleged rapists. About 3% were women. Some were children.

Black people were lynched for murder or assault, or on suspicion that they committed those crimes. They could also be lynched for looking at a white woman or for bumping the shoulder of a white woman. Some were killed for being near or related to someone accused of the aforementioned offenses.

Identifying the dead is supremely difficult work. As sociologists Amy Kate Bailey and Stewart Tolnay argue persuasively in their 2015 book “Lynched,” very little is known about lynching victims beyond their gender and race.

But by cross-referencing news reports with census data, scholars and civil rights organizations are uncovering more details.

One might expect that mobs seeking to destabilize the black community would focus on the successful and the influential – people like preachers or prominent business owners.

Instead, lynching disproportionately targeted lower-status black people – individuals society would not protect, like the agricultural worker Sam Hose of Georgia and men like Henry Smith, a Texas handyman accused of raping and killing a three-year-old girl.

The rope and the pyre snuffed out primarily the socially marginal: the unemployed, the unmarried, the precarious – often not the prominent – who expressed any discontentment with racial caste.

That’s because lynching was a form of social control. By killing workers with few connections who could be economically replaced – and doing so in brutal, public ways that struck terror into black communities – lynching kept white supremacy on track.
Fight from the front lines

So black ministers weren’t often lynching victims, but they could be targeted if they got in the way.

I.T. Burgess, a preacher in Putnam County, Florida, was hanged in 1894 after being accused of planning to instigate a revolt, according to a May 30, 1894, story in the Atlanta Constitution newspaper. Later that year, in December, the Constitution also reported, Lucius Turner, a preacher near West Point, Georgia, was shot by two brothers for apparently writing an insulting note to their sister.

Ida B. Wells wrote in her 1895 editorial “A Red Record” about Reverend King, a minister in Paris, Texas, who was beaten with a Winchester Rifle and placed on a train out of town. His offense, he said, was being the only person in Lamar County to speak against the horrific 1893 lynching of the handyman Henry Smith.

In each of these cases, the victim’s profession was ancillary to their lynching. But preaching was not incidental to black pastors’ resistance to lynching.

My dissertation research shows black pastors across the U.S. spoke out against racial violence during its worst period, despite the clear danger that it put them in.

Many, like the Washington, D.C., Presbyterian pastor Francis Grimke, preached to their congregations about racial violence. Grimke argued for comprehensive anti-racist education as a way to undermine the narratives that led to lynching.

Other pastors wrote furiously about anti-black violence.

Charles Price Jones, the founder of the Church of God (Holiness) in Mississippi, for example, wrote poetry affirming the African heritage of black Americans. Sutton Griggs, a black Baptist pastor from Texas, wrote novels that were, in reality, thinly veiled political treatises. Pastors wrote articles against lynching in their own denominational newspapers.
By any means necessary

Some white pastors decried racial terror, too. But others used the pulpit to instigate violence.

On June 21, 1903, the white pastor of Olivet Presbyterian church in Delaware used his religious leadership to incite a lynching.

Preaching to a crowd of 3,000 gathered in downtown Wilmington, Reverend Robert A. Elwood urged the jury in the trial of George White – a black farm laborer accused of raping and killing a 17-year-old white girl, Helen Bishop – to pronounce White guilty speedily.

Otherwise, Elwood continued, according to a June 23, 1903 New York Times article, White should be lynched. He cited the Biblical text 1 Corinthians 5:13, which orders Christians to “expel the wicked person from among you.”

“The responsibility for lynching would be yours for delaying the execution of the law,” Elwood thundered, exhorting the jury.

George White was dragged out of jail the next day, bound and burned alive in front of 2,000 people.

The following Sunday, a black pastor named Montrose W. Thornton discussed the week’s barbarities with his own congregation in Wilmington. He urged self-defense.

“There is but one part left for the persecuted negro when charged with crime and when innocent. Be a law unto yourself,” he told his parishioners. “Die in your tracks, perhaps drinking the blood of your pursuer.”

Newspapers around the country denounced both sermons. An editorial in the Washington Star said both pastors had “contributed to the worst passions of the mob.”

By inciting lynching and advocating for self defense, the editors judged, Elwood and Thornton had “brought the pulpit into disrepute.”


This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Malcolm Brian Foley, Baylor University.

Read more:


Lynching memorial shows women were victims, too


Maryland has created a truth commission on lynchings – can it deliver?


An editor and his newspaper helped build white supremacy in Georgia