Friday, November 29, 2024

Thanksgiving Myths Aim to Silence Indigenous Voices. We Won’t Be Silent.




Let’s reject all settlers myths this Thanksgiving and honor Indigenous resistance.
November 28, 2024

The Barracks on Alcatraz Island greets you with a welcome that has remained since the occupation in 1969.Johnnie Jae


Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.

For many Americans, Thanksgiving is a time to gather with loved ones, share a meal, watch football and express gratitude. Some Native Americans celebrate Thanksgiving this way as well, because feasting is Indigenous — we also love eating and watching football.

Still, the holiday carries a much heavier weight: It is a stark reminder of the violent colonization that began with the arrival of European settlers. The idyllic myths surrounding Thanksgiving align with broader strategies of historical revisionism used to justify settler colonialism by distorting and erasing histories of violence, exploitation and resistance. They reinforce settler identity and national pride and discourage critical engagement in our complex histories. These strategies serve to normalize colonization, valorize settlers and silence Indigenous voices.

Yet, even in the shadow of these painful histories, Native communities have found ways to challenge the sanitized myths of Thanksgiving and call for a reckoning with the true history of the United States, encouraging reflection, accountability and action to support Indigenous rights and justice. At the same time, the holiday serves as an opportunity to reclaim whitewashed narratives and assert Indigenous presence, reminding the world of the unbroken spirit of Native nations.

A collage featured in the Red Power on Alcatraz Perspectives 50 years Later exhibit.Johnnie Jae.

In November 1969, a group of young Native activists, who became known as “Indians of All Tribes,” sought to draw attention to the federal government’s failure to honor treaties, the dire conditions on reservations, and the systemic erasure of Indigenous cultures by occupying Alcatraz Island after a fire destroyed the American Indian Center in San Francisco. From November 20, 1969, to June 11, 1971, activists took control of the island, citing the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868), which they argued gave them the right to claim unused federal land.

During their 19-month occupation, they transformed Alcatraz into a symbolic space of resistance, using it as a platform to advocate for sovereignty, education and cultural renewal. Though the protest ended when federal authorities forcibly removed the occupiers, it was a pivotal moment that reinvigorated the Indigenous rights movement.


Op-Ed |
Racial Justice
Thanksgiving Can Never Be Redeemed From Its Colonial Past. Let’s Abolish It.
The work of decolonization means refusing the banal evil of Thanksgiving.
By Amrah Salomón , Truthout November 24, 2022


In the spirit of the Alcatraz occupation, Unthanksgiving Day, also known as the Indigenous Peoples Sunrise Ceremony, has been organized by the International Indian Treaty Council and held annually on Alcatraz Island since 1975. The Unthanksgiving sunrise ceremony honors the legacy of the Natives who occupied Alcatraz and fosters solidarity among Natives and non-Natives. It serves as a celebration of Indigenous survival and the ongoing fight for justice.


Native communities have found ways to challenge the sanitized myths of Thanksgiving and call for a reckoning with the true history of the United States.

In 1970, while the occupation of Alcatraz was ongoing in San Francisco, across the country on the East Coast, the United American Indians of New England established the Day of Mourning. The Day of Mourning held every year in Plymouth, Massachusetts, includes a march through Plymouth’s historic district to Cole’s Hill, where invited speakers speak about Native histories and the struggles taking place in our communities and beyond. The event was conceived after Wamsutta, an Aquinnah Wampanoag leader, was invited to speak at the commemoration of the 350th anniversary of the arrival of the pilgrims in Plymouth, Massachusetts. After his planned speech — which criticized the glorification of the whitewashed Thanksgiving narrative and detailed the atrocities committed against Indigenous peoples — was censored, he and other Indigenous activists gathered to mark the first Day of Mourning.

One of the most poignant moments in the speech that Wamsutta had planned was a reminder of our humanity:


History wants us to believe that the Indian was a savage, illiterate, uncivilized animal. A history that was written by an organized, disciplined people, to expose us as an unorganized and undisciplined entity. Two distinctly different cultures met. One thought they must control life; the other believed life was to be enjoyed, because nature decreed it. Let us remember, the Indian is and was just as human as the white man. The Indian feels pain, gets hurt, and becomes defensive, has dreams, bears tragedy and failure, suffers from loneliness, needs to cry as well as laugh. He, too, is often misunderstood.

While the Day of Mourning acknowledges the historical injustices and mourns the loss of our ancestors, it is also a celebration of Indigenous survival, resilience and identity. Participants honor their ancestors through prayer and fasting while raising awareness about land sovereignty, environmental justice and the rights of Native people.


Indigenous peoples in the United States and Palestinians in Gaza have faced similar patterns of land dispossession and territorial fragmentation under settler-colonial systems.

The Day of Mourning also connects struggles faced by Indigenous peoples worldwide, highlighting the shared impacts of colonization and the need for collective resistance, which weighs heavily on Native communities as we bear witness to Israel’s war on Gaza.

Across continents and centuries, Indigenous peoples in the United States and Palestinians in Gaza have faced similar patterns of land dispossession and territorial fragmentation under settler-colonial systems. In the U.S., policies like the Indian Removal Act forcibly displaced Indigenous nations from their ancestral lands and pushed them onto reservations often located on economically and ecologically marginal terrain. The Dawes Act compounded this dispossession by fragmenting tribal territories and reducing Indigenous landholdings by millions of acres.

Likewise, Palestinians faced mass displacement during the Nakba in 1948, with thousands forced into refugee camps. This dispossession continues today through land confiscations and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Meanwhile, Gaza remains isolated under a blockade that restricts movement and access, further severing Palestinians from their homelands.A sign reading From Alcatraz to Standing Rock is featured in the Red Power on Alcatraz Perspectives 50 years
Later.Johnnie Jae

The erosion of sovereignty has been a central tool of oppression for both Indigenous peoples in the United States and Palestinians in Gaza. In the U.S., federal policies undermined the rights of tribal nations to self-determination by replacing traditional governance systems with federal oversight and forcing assimilation through initiatives like the Indian boarding school system, which sought to eradicate Native identities and sever the connection of Native youth to their communities.

These efforts to subjugate Native communities are not confined to the past.

On October 27, 2016, about 200 police in riot gear, along with soldiers from the National Guard, carried out a midday raid on a protest encampment at Standing Rock, where Water Protectors had gathered to block construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Over 140 people were arrested on charges, including criminal trespassing, rioting and endangerment by fire, the last stemming from vehicles allegedly set ablaze during the confrontation. The militarized response exemplified the lengths to which authorities go to protect corporate interests over Native lives and environmental justice.


The myths of Thanksgiving perpetuate a sanitized narrative of harmony and gratitude that erases the violent historical and contemporary realities of settler colonialism.

Meanwhile, Palestinians in Gaza face severe restrictions on self-governance, with Israel exerting control over borders, airspace and access to essential resources. The Oslo Accords further fragmented Palestinian governance, fostering dependence on international aid while denying meaningful autonomy. Palestinians also encounter systemic efforts to crush resistance through militarized surveillance, airstrikes and blockades to maintain Israel’s hold on the region.

For Native peoples, the destruction and suffering in Gaza are hauntingly familiar because they mirror the aftermath of tragedies like the Massacre of Wounded Knee and violent police attacks on Water Protectors at Standing Rock. These shared experiences highlight the devastating consequences of colonizers wielding violence to suppress resistance. However, while these tragic circumstances remind us of our shared history of violence, they also remind us that our people have a shared spirit of resilience and survival.

It’s important to understand these histories and the parallels that exist because crimes against humanity have a strange way of becoming pillars of American exceptionalism, “necessary evils” for the sake of “progress” and “manifest destiny” that, over time, become mythologized and celebrated as holidays — see Columbus Day, Independence Day and Presidents’ Day. Thanksgiving is no exception. I dread the possibility that someday a similar holiday could be invented to reframe Israel’s war on Gaza as a benevolent and just occurrence that should be celebrated.

The myths of Thanksgiving perpetuate a sanitized narrative of harmony and gratitude that erases the violent historical and contemporary realities of settler colonialism. By glorifying the arrival of European settlers and ignoring the intentional eradication and oppression of Indigenous peoples, Thanksgiving becomes less about gratitude and more of a tool for perpetuating historical erasure and distraction, further marginalizing Indigenous voices and struggles.

As Thanksgiving myths continue to shape public consciousness, there is a pressing need to disrupt those narratives and center the voices of those who have been silenced. By addressing the uncensored history of colonization and its ongoing impacts, we can encourage action toward Indigenous sovereignty, environmental justice and human rights on a global scale.

Thanksgiving, filtered through a Native lens of truth and resistance, can become a moment of reckoning — a time to give thanks for our survival, resistance and commitment to dismantling the structures of oppression that have persisted for centuries.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Johnnie Jae is an Otoe-Missouria and Choctaw journalist, speaker, podcaster, technologist, advocate, community builder and entrepreneur who loves empowering others to follow their passions and create for healing and positive change in the world. She is the founder of “A Tribe Called Geek,” an award-winning media platform for Indigenous Geek Culture and STEM as well as #Indigenerds4Hope, a suicide prevention initiative designed to educate, encourage and empower Native Youth who are or know someone struggling with bullying, mental illness and suicide. She is also the host of the “Indigenous Flame” and “A Tribe Called Geek” podcasts that originated on the Success Native Style Radio Network.
Demands Trump release report on investigation of top aide's alleged 'pay-for-play' scheme



November 28, 2024

The watchdog Public Citizen on Wednesday demanded that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's transition team release a report from an internal investigation into allegations that aide Boris Epshteyn asked potential nominees to pay him monthly consulting fees in exchange for pushing for them to get jobs in the next administration.

"If a pay-for-play operation has corrupted the political appointment process in the Trump transition, as seems to be the case, the full facts must be disclosed to the American people," said Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman in a statement. "If one of Mr. Trump's close advisers has been compromised by personal monetary considerations, then the personnel selection process itself has been compromised."

In a letter to Trump transition co-chairs Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon, Weissman and Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert noted that "media accounts indicate that the internal report discovered at least two specific incidents where Mr. Epshteyn made inappropriate demands for payment, so the concerns appear far beyond speculative."

Multiple outlets, including Just the News and CNN, reported on the existence of the internal review on Monday.

"One of those who was pitched by Epshteyn for both a consulting contract and an investment opportunity was Scott Bessent, the hedge fund manager named Friday night by Trump as his nominee for Treasury secretary. Bessent rejected the overtures and eventually, when asked, reported concerns about them to the Trump transition team, including Vice President-elect JD Vance," Just the News detailed. "Trump late last week ordered an internal inquiry into the consulting arrangements of Ephsteyn and other contractors to be conducted by lawyer David Warrington with the results to be delivered to his incoming Chief of Staff Susie Wiles."


U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Boris Epshteyn walk on the day U.S. President-elect Donald Trump meets with House Republicans in Washington, U.S., November 13, 2024. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

Just the News continued:

Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, a retired Navy SEAL who previously hired Epshteyn for consulting on an unsuccessful Senate candidacy in 2022, reported to the transition team in a sworn statement that he had an uncomfortable conversation this month with Epshteyn when he inquired about whether he should apply for the job of Navy secretary. "It is too early for that, let's talk business," Greitens quoted Epshteyn as telling him. "Mr. Epshteyn's overall tone and behavior gave me the impression of an implicit expectation to engage in business dealings with him before he would advocate for or suggest my appointment to the president," Greitens wrote in a statement that was submitted Friday to the Trump transition office and obtained by Just the News. "This created a sense of unease and pressure on my part."
Greitens immediately alerted his lawyer to the concerns, who arranged for the statement to be sent to Warrington, the lawyer named by Trump and Wiles to probe the issue, according to interviews and documents.

While CNN reported that the claims "prompted those looking into the matter to make an initial recommendation that Epshteyn should be removed from Trump's proximity and that he should not be employed or paid by Trump entities," the aide broadly denied the alleged behavior.

"I am honored to work for President Trump and with his team," Epshteyn said in a statement. "These fake claims are false and defamatory and will not distract us from Making America Great Again."

In a statement to both outlets, Trump spokesperson Steve Cheung said that "as is standard practice, a broad review of the campaign's consulting agreements has been conducted and completed, including as to Boris, among others. We are now moving ahead together as a team to help President Trump Make America Great Again."

Trump himself told Just the News that "I suppose every president has people around them who try to make money off them on the outside. It's a shame but it happens."

"But no one working for me in any capacity should be looking to make money. They should only be here to Make America Great Again," he added. "No one can promise any endorsement or nomination except me. I make these decisions on my own, period."

Weissman and Gilbert wrote Wednesday: "No doubt Mr. Trump makes his own decisions on personnel. But advisers frame decisions, push for candidates they like, make the case against those they disfavor, and sometimes act as gatekeepers influencing who gets consideration at all. No one doubts that close advisers are impactful."

"The American people have a right to know the facts your internal review has found," the watchdog leaders concluded.

The probe into Epshteyn is part of a flood of ethics problems with Trump's transition team and future administration. Another issue has been a delay in signing transition agreements with the Biden administration. Wiles announced Tuesday that the team finally signed a memorandum of understanding with President Joe Biden's White House.

Wiles also signaled that rather than signing a separate agreement with the General Services Administration to access federal funding, government office space, and cybersecurity support, Trump's transition team will run a privately funded operation. Politicoreported that the team did not respond to a question about another agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that enables the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to run background checks and start processing security clearances for Cabinet nominees.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has criticized the delays in the transition process that is laid out in federal law, said Tuesday that "this announcement fails to answer key questions about national security threats and FBI vetting of nominees, and increases concerns about corruption. There appear to be serious gaps between the Trump transition's ethics agreement and the letter of the law."

While Wiles said the team will disclose its funders and not take foreign money, Warren added that "the reliance on private donors to fund the transition is nothing more than a ploy for well-connected Trump insiders to line their pockets while pretending to save taxpayers money."

Trump brings back government by social media



By AFP
November 26, 2024
Camille CAMDESSUS

He is not yet in power but President-elect Donald Trump rattled much of the world with an off-hours warning of stiff tariffs on close allies and China — a loud hint that Trump-style government by social media post is coming back.

With word of these levies against goods imported from Mexico, Canada and China, Trump sent auto industry stocks plummeting, raised fears for global supply chains and unnerved the world’s major economies.

For Washington-watchers with memories of the Republican’s first term, the impromptu policy volley on Monday evening foreshadowed a second term of startling announcements of all manner, fired off at all hours of the day from his smartphone.

“Donald Trump is never going to change much of anything,” said Larry Sabato, a leading US political scientist and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

“You can expect in the second term pretty much what he showed us about himself and his methods in the first term. Social media announcements of policy, hirings and firings will continue.”

The first of Trump’s tariff announcements — a 25 percent levy on everything coming in from Mexico and Canada — came amid an angry rebuke of lax border security at 6:45 pm on Truth Social, Trump’s own platform.

The United States is bound by agreements on the movement of goods and services brokered by Trump in a free trade treaty with both nations during his first term.

But Trump warned that the new levy would “remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country” — sowing panic from Ottawa to Mexico City.

Seconds later, another message from the incoming commander-in-chief turned the focus on Chinese imports, which he said would be hit with “an additional 10% Tariff, above any additional Tariffs.”

The consequences were immediate.

Almost every major US automaker operates plants in Mexico, and shares in General Motors and Stellantis — which produce pickup trucks in America’s southern neighbor — plummeted.

Canada, China and Mexico protested, while Germany called on its European partners to prepare for Trump to impose hefty tariffs on their exports and stick together to combat such measures.

– Framing the debate –

The tumult recalls Trump’s first term, when journalists, business leaders and politicians at home and abroad would scan their phones for the latest pronouncements, often long after they had left the office or over breakfast.

During his first four years in the Oval Office, the tweet — in those days his newsy posts were almost exclusively limited to Twitter, now known as X — became the quasi-official gazette for administration policy.

The public learned of the president-elect’s 2020 Covid-19 diagnosis via an early-hours post, and when Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Qasem Soleimani was assassinated on Trump’s order, the Republican confirmed the kill by tweeting a US flag.

The public and media learned of numerous other decisions big and small by the same source, from the introduction of customs duties to the dismissal of cabinet secretaries.

It is not a communication method that has been favored by any previous US administration and runs counter to the policies and practices of most governments around the world.

Throughout his third White House campaign, and with every twist and turn in his various entanglements with the justice system, Trump has poured his heart out on Truth Social, an app he turned to during his 20-month ban from Twitter.

In recent days, the mercurial Republican has even named his attorney general secretaries of justice and health via announcements on the network.

“He sees social media as a tool to shape and direct the national conversation and will do so again,” said political scientist Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University professor.

Trump mocked after declaring 'productive conversation' officially closes the border


President-Elect Donald J. Trump prepares to sign a plaque placed along the border wall Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2021, at the Texas-Mexico border near Alamo, Texas. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead) Image via Flickr.

November 28, 2024
ALTERNET

Donald Trump on Wednesday declared that he cut a deal with Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo to "effectively" close the Southern border.

The president-elect posted to Truth Social: "Just had a wonderful conversation with the new President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo. She has agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border."

He continued, "We also talked about what can be done to stop the massive drug inflow into the United States, and also, U.S. consumption of these drugs. It was a very productive conversation!"

CNN political analyst Bakari Sellers replied to Trump's claim via X (formerly Twitter), writing: "But from the desk of President Sheinbaum: You may not be aware that Mexico has developed a comprehensive policy to assist migrants from different parts of the world who cross our territory en route to the southern border of the United States. As a result, and according to data from your country’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP), encounters at the Mexico-United States border have decreased by 75% between December 2023 and November 2024."

Mike Nellis, a former Senior Adviser to Kamala Harriswrote via the social media website Bluesky: "Trump thinks he convinced the President of Mexico to stop all migration across the border LOL"


Trump's failure and the next pandemic

Thom Hartmann, AlterNet
November 28, 2024 




“The political folks believed that because [Covid] was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy.” —Vanity Fair’s Katherine Eban quoting Jared Kushner’s team in March, 2020


Arguably the most important aspect of political leadership is the ability to deal with a crisis.

The massive incompetence and malice of the Trump administration in 2020 led, for example, to the unnecessary deaths of an estimated half-million Americans. And now we may well be facing a repeat that could be even worse.


The flu pandemic of 1918-1920 was the result of a bird flu (H1N1) that mixed, presumably in a pig, with a human-adapted flu virus and then killed over 50 million people worldwide and almost 700,000 in America (when our population was only 100 million people; it’s 334 million today).

So far, every person in America who’s become infected with this generation’s bird flu (H5N1) has gotten it from an animal, mostly birds (particularly chickens). It’s so widespread in the US chicken population, in fact, that it’s largely responsible for the high price of eggs leading up to the election and today (so much for the GOP/media inflation talking point).

In Canada, though, the science journal Nature published a rather alarming story last week, writing:

“In a children’s hospital in Vancouver, Canada, a teenager is in critical condition after being infected with an avian influenza virus that has researchers on high alert.
“Viral genome sequences released last week suggest that the teenager is infected with an H5N1 avian influenza virus bearing mutations that might improve its ability to infect the human airway. If true, it could mean that the virus can rapidly evolve to make the jump from birds to humans.”

The teenager doesn’t work or even live near farms and has had no known contact with birds. And it appears that the virus that has her at death’s door is a recent mutation:
“But researchers have homed in on three key differences between those [normal bird flu] viruses and the teenager’s: two possible mutations that could enhance the virus’s ability to infect human cells, and another that could allow it to replicate more easily in human cells, not just in the cells of its usual avian host.”

There’s a broad scientific consensus that the H1N1 flu of 1918 acquired its ability to easily infect humans and transmit from person-to-person because a pig with a case of a random human flu virus (pigs are easily infected by people) was simultaneously infected with bird flu. The two viruses are believed to have swapped genes inside the pig, producing the deadly variation that killed millions worldwide (although the hypothesis is still being debated).

And just last month, here in Oregon, a pig farm discovered five of their pigs were sick with bird flu. Public health authorities immediately sealed off the farm and euthanized the pigs to prevent them from picking up a human flu virus, but this is a pretty stark warning.


Another concern is that with Covid we had a virus that was transmitted by air, but died almost immediately when it landed on surfaces we could touch. Nobody got it from buckling a seatbelt used by an infected person on a plane, eating from a plate handled by an infected restaurant worker, or touching a package handed to them by an infected Amazon delivery driver.

The flu, on the other hand, is easily transmitted by touch; it’s why people are advised to frequently wash their hands during flu season.

Nobody wants to create a panic, least of all me, but this is alarming. Even more alarming is that if this mutation (or others like it) spreads, the guys running our nation’s response to a second pandemic this decade will be vaccine-skeptic Bob Kennedy and herd immunity advocate Marty Makary.


Herd immunity is the theory that when enough people are infected with a disease, the survivors have leftover “natural” immunity; some advocates (like Makary) even suggest it’s superior to vaccine-induced immunity.

The problem with the argument for “natural” herd immunity in the case of Covid or a deadly flu is that the disease often kills people so only the survivors have immunity, whereas the vaccine confers immunity without killing people.

Herd immunity is a real thing; we saw it play out during the Black Death in Europe in the 1340s. After a third of all the people on the continent were dead, the remaining two-thirds appear to have a minor immunity, the traces of which are still found in their descendants’ genome today.


Relying on herd immunity to deal with Covid would require roughly 80 percent of all Americans to get infected, leading to at least an additional 1-2 million deaths here as well as more multiple millions of Americans suffering permanent disability from long Covid.

Nonetheless, Makary went so far as to publish an article in The Wall Street Journalin February of 2021 arguing, as the headline read, “We’ll Have Herd Immunity By April”:
“Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction,” he wrote, “that there may be very little Covid-19 by April [2021] but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine. But scientists shouldn’t try to manipulate the public by hiding the truth.”

Last week, Trump appointed Makary to head up the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees the production and distribution of vaccines. Not reassuring.


And his boss, of course, could be even more problematic.

That’s the Bob Kennedy who Trump wants to head up the Department of Health and Human Services who argued that:
— Efforts to deal with Covid were part of a “biosecurity agenda that will enslave the entire human race”;

— The mRNA Covid vaccine was “the deadliest vaccine ever made”;
— The Covid virus was “ethnically targeted” to spare “Jews and Chinese people;”
— And efforts to mitigate the spread of Covid were “instruments of compliance for authoritarian regimes.”

Leadership matters, particularly during times of crisis. As do expertise, experience, and competence. Kennedy is a lawyer, not a physician; he has no medical training whatsoever.

We’re facing Russia’s threat to turn their attack on Ukraine into World War III, China’s increasing belligerence toward Taiwan with their spies well-lodged inside every major US phone company, and now the possibility of a new pandemic.

Given how, during the last pandemic, Jared Kushner advised Trump that it would be an “effective political strategy” to ignore the spreading virus and blame it on Blue state (WA, NJ, CT, NY) governors — and Trump took that advice for the first several months while the pandemic blossomed out of control — now might be a good time for us all to assess how prepared we are to go through this again.

Stock up on masks and essentials. Hand sanitizer and things like Vitamin D and Zinc that support the immune system. Consider what’s necessary to work from home.

And those Democratic governors who take science seriously should begin pandemic preparations for their states.


None of this necessitates panic; this time the government will be able to produce a flu vaccine much faster (once the virus finally mutates and stabilizes) than the yearlong wait we experienced in 2020 (assuming Kennedy and Makary don’t screw things up). We’d never before produced a vaccine against a coronavirus; flu vaccines have been produced worldwide since 1945.

As the old saying goes, forewarned is forearmed.



Possible tariffs worry Canada uranium miners as they boost output to meet US demand

Reuters | November 28, 2024 |


Yellowcake (uranium concentrate) produced at Cameco’s Rabbit Lake mine in Saskatchewan. Credit: Cameco

Canada’s uranium miners, confident that only they can meet US demand for the element after Russian supply curbs, have accelerated output and forward contracts to supply US energy companies, but they are now worried about possible tariffs from US President-elect Donald Trump.


Shares of uranium companies rallied in Toronto and New York over the last two weeks on news that Russia was planning to restrict the sale of enriched uranium to the US.

This week, Trump threatened to slap a 25% tariff on all goods from Canada and Mexico. This could inflate prices of the radioactive material unless uranium receives exemptions.

Canada is the world’s No. 2 producer of uranium after Russia. About 85% of its production is exported. Companies say the commodity is in acute shortage.

Vancouver-based uranium exploration company NexGen Energy is still at least four years away from producing in Canada. Company officials told Reuters they were in advanced discussions about possible off-take agreements with US utility companies that are gearing up to produce more nuclear power to meet growing electricity demand.

“We’ve never been busier on that front, and it has dramatically picked up after the Russian announcement and I would say that the utilities are very keen to see a new Canadian uranium miner to diversify the risk,” said Travis McPherson, chief commercial officer.

Jason Barnard, CEO of Foremost Clean Energy, a uranium exploration company, said further upward pressure on uranium prices was inevitable, adding the US may not be ready for the inflationary impact.

Uranium price to recover next year on shortage, Trump policy, Sprott CEO says

McPherson said Canada and NextGen in particular are in a good position to negotiate any tariff proposals.

“Given the dire need of US nuclear reactors for uranium that powers nearly 20% of their power demand combined with the fact they must rely heavily on imports, Canada (and NexGen in particular) is in a strong position to leverage this reality in any potential negotiations/discussions.”

“The potential tariffs on Canada demonstrate the need for Canada to have indispensable goods that the US industry needs and cannot get elsewhere or domestically. Uranium is one of those very unique goods,” he said.

The US imports a quarter of its uranium from Russia and the rest mainly from Canada followed by Kazakhstan, though it has some domestic production.

Russia said on Nov. 15 it had imposed restrictions on the export of enriched uranium to the US, in response to Washington’s ban on imports of Russian pre-enriched uranium. President Joe Biden’s administration had offered waivers allowing for shipments to continue through 2027.

This month US nuclear fuel supplier Centrus Energy announced that its main Russian supplier had canceled exports to the company, adding this loss of Russian supply would affect the company’s ability to meet delivery obligations.

Bids for uranium November 2025 delivery jumped from $4 to $84 a pound after Russia announced its restrictions, market research firm and consultancy UxC said.

Canadian miner Cameco, one of the world’s biggest publicly listed uranium miners, told Reuters it hopes there is “unencumbered” trade in nuclear goods and services between Canada and the US as the country needs a secure western supply of uranium fuel to address its increasing electricity demands.

“The announcement from Russia highlights what we have been saying for some time, that the cumulative risks to the supply of nuclear fuel are significant and that to break the dependence on Russia and other state-owned enterprises, coordinated western responses are required ensuring an industry-led, government enabled secure western fuel supply.”

(By Divya Rajagopal, Ernest Scheyder and Timothy Gardener; Editing by Veronica Brown and David Gregorio)


Ironic Dependency: Russian Uranium and the US Energy Market


Be careful who you condemn and ostracise.  They just might be supplying you with a special need.  While the United States security establishment deems Russia the devil incarnate helped along by aspiring, mischief-making China, that devil continues supplying the US energy market with enriched uranium.

This dependency has irked the self-sufficiency patriots in Washington, especially those keen to break Russia’s firm hold in this field.  That, more than any bleeding-heart sentimentality for Ukrainian suffering at the hands of the Russian Army, has taken precedence.  For that reason, US lawmakers sought a ban on Russian uranium that would come into effect by January 1, 2028, by which time domestic uranium enrichment and conversion is meant to have reached sustainable levels.

The May 2024 Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, signed by President Joe Biden as law H.R.1042, specifically bans unirradiated low-enriched uranium produced in Russia or by any Russian entity from being imported into the US. It also bars the importation of unirradiated low-enriched uranium that has been swapped for the banned uranium or otherwise obtained in circumstances designed to bypass the restrictions.

At the time, Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm struck a note of hollering triumphalism.  “Our nation’s clean energy future will not rely on Russian imports,” she declared.  “We are making investments to build out a secure nuclear fuel supply chain here in the United States.  That means American jobs supporting the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to a clean, safe, and secure energy economy.”

This does not get away from current circumstances, which see Russia’s provision of some 27% of enrichment service purchases for US utilities.  The Russian state-owned company Rosatom is alone responsible for arranging imports of low-enriched uranium into the US market at some 3 million SWU (Separative Work Units) annually.  Alexander Uranov, who heads the Russian analytical service Atominfo Center, puts this figure into perspective: that amount would be the equivalent of the annual uranium consumption rate of 20 large reactors.

Given this reliance, some legroom has been given to those in the industry by means of import waivers.  H.R.1042 grants the Department of Energy the power to waive the ban in cases where there is no alternative viable source of low-enriched uranium available to enable the continued operation of a nuclear reactor or US nuclear energy company and in cases where importing the uranium would be in the national interest.

The utility Constellation, which is the largest operator of US nuclear reactors, along with the US enrichment trader, Centrus, have received waivers.  The latter also has on its book of supply, the Russian state-owned company Tenex, its largest provider of low-enriched uranium as part of a 2011 contract.

No doubt knowing such a state of play, Moscow announced this month that it would temporarily ban the export of low-enriched uranium to the US as an amendment to Government Decree No 313 (March 9, 2022).  The decree covers imports “to the United States or under foreign trade contracts concluded with persons registered in the jurisdiction of the United States.”

According to the Russian government, such a decision was made “on the instructions of the President in response to the restriction imposed by the United States for 2024-2027, and from 2028 – a ban on the import of Russian uranium products.”  Vladimir Putin had accordingly given instructions in September “to analyse the possibility of restricting supplies to foreign markets of strategic raw materials”.  The Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom confirmed that the ban was a “tit-for-tat response to actions of the US authorities” and would not affect the delivery of Russian uranium to other countries.

In a Russian government post on Telegram, the ban is qualified.  To make matters less severe, there will be, for instance, one-time licenses issued by the Russian Federal Service for Technical and Export Control.  This is of cold comfort to the likes of Centrus, given that most of its revenue is derived from importing the enriched uranium before then reselling it.  On being notified by Tenex that its general license to export the uranium to the US had been rescinded, the scramble was on to seek a specific export license for remaining shipments in 2024 and those scheduled to take place in 2025.

In a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Centrus warned that any failure by Tenex “to secure export licences for our pending or future orders […] would affect our ability to meet our delivery obligations to our customers and would have a material adverse effect on our business, results in operations, and competitive position.”  While Tenex had contacted Centrus of its plans to secure the required export licenses in a timely manner, a sense of pessimism was hard to dispel as “there is no certainty whether such licenses will be issued by the Russian authorities and if issued, whether they will be issued in a timely manner.”  The sheer, sweet irony of it all.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.




How Trump’s tariffs would 'aggressively' transfer wealth from the poor to the rich: journalist




Carl Gibson

September 20, 2024
RAW STORY

The cornerstone of former President Donald Trump's economic agenda for a possible second term is steep tariffs on imported goods. This is ostensibly to help even the playing field for American companies, but one veteran journalist is arguing that it's a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth upward from the poor to the rich.

In a recent article for the New Republic, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston explained why tariffs are particularly harmful for the working class and a huge boon for the owner class. He made the case that tariffs are not only a form of a sales tax in that tariffs would just be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices, but that they double as a way for business owners to "aggressively" price gouge goods with little blowback.

Johnston used the example of a car dealership (which often import vehicles from Asia and Europe) to illustrate how tariffs serve as a one-two punch to both inflict higher prices and increase profits for businesses. For the sake of simplicity, the journalist posited a scenario in which cars would sell for $10,000, with $1,000 of each sale being pocketed as profit.

READ MORE: Trump's newest policy proposal would be a 'huge tax increase' for the middle class: analysis

" Trump says he will slap a 60 percent tariff on imported goods from China," Johnston wrote. "The dealers who sell Chinese cars in America will have to raise their prices to $16,000. If you buy a Chinese car, you will pay that tariff, not China. Indeed, the only harm to China would be selling fewer cars because the tariff would make Chinese cars too costly for many Americans."

"But remember, you own an American car company. Will you continue selling your cars for $10,000 to earn a $1,000 profit per vehicle? Not a chance," Johnston continued, noting that a fundamental practice of business in a capitalist economy is profit maximization.

"Trump’s tariff means you can raise the price of your vehicles to $16,000 and not lose any market share. However, the Trump tariff doesn’t apply to you since you are a domestic carmaker. That means you will collect not $1,000 profit per car but $7,000, all paid by your customers," he added. "But because profit maximization is your goal, you will likely undercut the Chinese car companies. To simplify the math, you would charge $15,000 for each car. That’s a large enough discount that some people who want a Chinese car will purchase your American-made car instead."

Johnston then pointed out that the $1,000 profit from each car sold would "skyrocket to $6,000," which "comes at no cost" since the business wouldn't have to hire more workers, or make additional capital investments on improving their facilities.

With imported cars costing 50% to 60% more, Johnston observed that car dealerships would instead likely invest their higher profits in hiring more auto mechanics, in order to extend the life of the cars they're still selling. He noted that this would bring in an entirely new stream of profit, as a car dealership would be able to make more money from selling spare parts and charging for mechanic services.

"Trump’s tariffs stand to make you so much money that you’d be laughing not just on your way to the bank but on your way to your megayacht, private jumbo jet, private Caribbean islands, and your many mansions," he wrote. "Now, if you think America’s problem is that the rich don’t have nearly enough—well, please vote for Donald Trump."


'Who's going to pay? We are': Fox News host admits Trump tariffs are bad for Americans

David Edwards
November 28, 2024 

Fox News/screen grab

Fox News host Julie Banderas warned viewers that they should be prepared to pay more for goods if president-elect Donald Trump follows through with his threat to place tariffs on CanadaMexico and China.

While speaking to small business "expert" Gene Marks on Thursday, Banderas noted that Trump had vowed to make tariffs "so high, so horrible, so obnoxious" to force businesses to move to the United States.

"Oh, it's going to be a wild ride," she remarked. "Let's be realistic. I mean, a lot of American companies do not buy American. They do rely on a lot of merchandise that is purchased from other countries."

"Is this going to increase prices to you and me?" the host asked Marks.

"Oh, yeah. It could," the guest admitted. "It just depends on how the businesses decide to absorb those price increases."

"I think if American companies are forced to buy American, it is going to cost more ultimately," Banderas pointed out. "And then who's going to pay for that? We are."

"We are going to be buying the merchandise that they are going to have to raise the costs on because they're not going to be buying from foreign countries," she added. "So ultimately, it does come down to the taxpayer dollar."

Watch the video below from Fox News.



'Comes out of consumers’ pockets': Here’s how much more you’ll pay under Trump’s tariffs

ALTERNET
November 26, 2024
CHRISTIAN NATIONALIST

'Totally wrong': Historian flags Trump defense pick's racist conspiracy theories

Travis Gettys
November 28, 2024 
RAW STORY

Pete Hegseth speaking with attendees at the 2022 Student Action Summit at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa, Florida. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Donald Trump's nominee for defense secretary has made ahistorical Muslim rhetoric a major theme in his writings, and many of his views resemble those expressed by white supremacist mass murderers.

Fox News host Pete Hegseth was tapped by the president-elect to lead the Pentagon, and experts sounded the alarm over his past writings about Islam as troubling and disqualifying, reported The Guardian.

“By the eleventh century, Christianity in the Mediterranean region, including the holy sites in Jerusalem, was so besieged by Islam that Christians had a stark choice: to wage defensive war or continue to allow Islam’s expansion and face existential war at home in Europe,” Hegseth wrote in his 2020 book "American Crusade." “The leftists of today would have argued for ‘diplomacy’ … We know how that would have turned out.”

“The pope, the Catholic Church, and European Christians chose to fight – and the crusades were born,” added Hegseth, who has a tattoo of the crusader slogan "Deus volt," or "God wills it," which associated with Christian nationalism, white supremacist and other far-right tendencies. “Enjoy Western civilization? Freedom? Equal justice under the law? Thank a crusader,” having written the same thing again earlier in the chapter.

However, aside from Hegseth's apparent sympathies to far-right extremist rhetoric, a historian said the conservative broadcaster doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

“There were absolutely no incursions into mainland Europe,” said Matthew Gabriele, a professor of medieval studies in the Department of Religion and Culture at Virginia Tech. “If anything, Islam was kind of on the retreat in Iberia and other places as well. So there was no large geopolitical shift or any kind of immediate threat of Islam taking over Europe.”

“The Crusaders lost," Gabriele added. "They lost everything. The idea that they kind of like emerged victorious is absolutely false."

Hegseth's book presents Islam as a natural enemy of the west, traffics in "great replacement"-style conspiracy theories and claims leftists and Muslims were trying to subvert the U.S., and the historian said those ideas are drawn from the same extremist ideology that has motivated mass murders.

“This narrative of the crusades as a defensive war, where if the Christians didn’t launch this offensive towards Jerusalem that Europe would be overrun has been a bog-standard narrative on the right: it’s something that was espoused by Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer, in 2011 and by the Christchurch shooter a few years ago," Gabriele said.

“It’s the worst kind of simplistic thinking,” he added. “Anybody who tells you these simple stories is selling something.”
'Disgusting': Ex-GOP rep shreds Elon Musk's 'dangerous' attack on civil service

Matthew Chapman
November 27, 2024 
RAW STORY


Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) slammed tech billionaire and Donald Trump ally Elon Musk for publicly naming examples of government employees he will target for elimination.

"Shame on anyone who doesn’t have a problem with the wealthiest man on the planet publicly sharing the individual names of government employees he wants fired," wrote Walsh, who went from being a Tea Party activist to one of the most outspoken conservative opponents of Trump. "Calling them out by name. Disgusting. Dangerous."

Musk, who helped Trump run critical sections of his campaign in the election and now heads up a MAGA task force on how to cut government spending, made the threats against specific employees earlier this week, according to CNN.

CNN's Jim Sciutto also condemned Musk's activity, pointing out that it could put them at a security risk.

"So Musk, once a very public anti-doxxer, is now doxxing individual federal employees for the 'crime' of having federal jobs like millions of Americans, forcing some to cancel social media accounts fearing threats and retribution," he wrote.

Musk, who is not a formal member of the Trump administration, cannot actually fire government workers directly; he can only advise Trump on which positions to eliminate. In the case of eliminating entire agencies, an act of Congress would be required.

This also comes as Musk comes under fire for publicly accusing the whistleblower in Trump's first impeachment trial of treason.


GASLIGHTING

Primark boss defends practices as budget fashion brand eyes expansion

Ireland-based budget fashion chain Primark has been criticised for its record on workers’ rights and the effect of its low-cost, high-volume model on the environment.

By AFP
November 27, 2024

Primark has become a fixture on the high street in the UK, Ireland and beyond - Copyright AFP ANDY BUCHANAN

Ornella LAMBERTI

Ireland-based budget fashion chain Primark has been criticised for its record on workers’ rights and the effect of its low-cost, high-volume model on the environment.

But its chief executive Paul Marchant does not agree. “I don’t buy the story that we can’t be ethical buying from Asia,” he told AFP in an interview in Dublin.

In the world of low-cost fashion, Primark — a fixture on the high street in the UK, Ireland and beyond — is a one-off.

The brand produces its garments in Asia and sells them cheaply in Europe, but ships them by boat rather than by plane, does not sell online, prepares its collections more than a year in advance and does not build up stock.

It has been a lucrative formula, with Marchant boasting recently that the retailer had hit the billion-pound ($1.3 billion) profit figure for the first time.

Primark, though, still has to bat back critics including environmental campaigners who argue that the brand’s “throwaway” fashion is a drain on resources.

Human rights groups meanwhile accuse it of relying on suppliers in countries where workers are afforded little protection.

Primark maintains that it trains Indian farmers in regenerative agriculture and that it conducts regular audits of its suppliers to ensure workers and land are not exploited.

Nonetheless, its model relies on policing of regulations in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, where its garments are mainly produced.

“Providing you have the right partners… and have the right guards and measures and controls in place… I don’t see any reason why you can’t have a very robust ethical supply chain at source,” said Marchant.

The company, he added, complies with the International Labour Organization’s code of conduct.

– Humble roots –


Primark published a report on its supply chain in 2018 but it only covered its own clothing factories, not its partners.

It admitted last year that previous partner SMART Myanmar had imposed excessive working time on its staff, and that they were not properly informed of their general leave entitlement.

However, it said there was no evidence to back up further claims that staff had limited toilet access and suffered verbal abuse from supervisors.

Primark claims to be making efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions but acknowledges that 97.5 percent of its overall carbon footprint comes from the activities of its suppliers.

Asked about the sheer volume of clothing his company sells, Marchant is insistent.

“We’re not flooding the market with unwanted goods,” he said. “We sell everything that we buy.”

He also claimed that his products are less sensitive than other brands to the whims of fashion, with half of its collections consisting of everyday clothing.

Primark launched in Ireland in 1969 under the name Penneys and has had only two bosses since: founder Arthur Ryan, then Marchant.

But the company, the top-selling budget-fashion flagship in both the UK and Ireland, is no longer a small family business.

It is now a thriving subsidiary of the agri-food giant Associated British Foods, and sells its clothes in 17 countries, employing 80,000 people.

– Expansion plans –

On the back of this success, Primark intends to expand in the United States and Europe (France, Spain, Portugal and Italy), Marchant explained.

The brand has also signed with “a franchise partner” to open stores in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and “potentially” Bahrain and Qatar within “12 to 18 months”, he added.

Primark’s direct competitors include Europe’s H&M and Zara, as well as Asian giants Shein and Temu, which follow a similar model of “low, low margins”, he said.

The company also achieves economies of scale by purchasing larger volumes than its competitors and does not sell online.

Instead, it hopes to lure customers to stores by expanding partnerships with popular brands such as Netflix, Disney and Hello Kitty.

Its 453 stores sell clothes and accessories, but also stock decorations and host cafes, eyebrow bars and hairdressers.

The idea is that everyone can find something.

For instance, parents are tempted by “competitive” prices on children’s clothing while women with special clothing requirements, such as those who are pregnant, who have suffered from breast cancer or who have disabilities, all have collections catering to them.
PATRIARCHY IS FEMICIDE

Why are female politicians more often targeted with violence? New findings confirm depressing suspicions



November 26, 2024

Despite some progress, women remain seriously underrepresented in politics globally. As of 2023, women held only 26% of parliamentary seats and 15.8% of the positions as heads of state or government.

My new research with colleagues raises one possible factor in this representation that goes beyond discrimination in selection procedures. It is simply more dangerous for women to pursue careers in politics than men. They are far more likely to become targets of violence.

In Italy, where we conducted our study, elected female mayors are approximately three times more likely to experience an attack than their male equivalents.

The reasons behind women’s ongoing underrepresentation in the corridors of power are multifaceted. Research has explored factors from political parties sidelining women and voter discrimination, to cultural norms and traditional familial expectations. Political violence might be part of the story.

Although there is evidence suggesting that women are disproportionately targeted by political violence, researchers have yet to determine whether this relationship is truly causal. The main obstacle lies in data quality. Much of the research relies on self-reported surveys from selected politicians, which are non-representative.

Additionally, female politicians often differ from their male counterparts in ways that extend beyond gender. Women in politics tend to be younger, less connected, and perceived to be more honest than men. These are all factors that may make them more vulnerable to attacks.

Previous research hasn’t disentangled whether it’s these traits or their gender that puts them at higher risk.

Our study tackles these questions by leveraging 12 years of data on attacks against Italian politicians. We use data from the annual reports compiled by the NGO Avviso Pubblico. This organisation works closely with Italian local governments and provides a reputable source of information on both online and offline attacks against politicians, including verbal threats and physical violence.

Using this data, we can compare mayors who are similar in every way other than their gender. We compare towns where a female mayor won by a narrow margin with those where a male mayor won by a similar slim lead. Female and male mayors who win by small margins share similar characteristics across 16 different metrics, strengthening the case that gender plays a significant role in targeted acts of violence.

Female mayors are three times more likely to be targeted by political violence than their male counterparts, according to our findings. Even when accounting for possible discrepancies in reporting and other demographic factors, the increased risk for women remains clear. This suggests gender plays a critical role in political violence.
Why are female politicians targeted more?

There are several reasons why women in politics may face more attacks than men. One possibility is their behaviour in office. Research shows that women often implement different policies, have different priorities, and lead in ways that differ from men. These differences might partly explain why women are targeted more often.

Interestingly, our research indicates that policy choices are not a significant factor in explaining the gender gap in attacks. We observe no notable differences in spending choices on sectors like healthcare, social welfare, and education between male and female mayors

. 
The study focused on Italian mayors. Shutterstock/Kraft74

Our findings support the idea that women face double standards when it comes to political violence. They are targeted even when they make the same decisions as men. Misogyny and gender bias may cause people to judge female leaders more harshly. Using detailed measures of mayoral performance, we found that the gender gap in attacks only appears when mayors perform poorly. In these cases, women are more likely to be targeted than men for similar shortcomings. This aligns with other evidence of double standards against women in the corporate world.

There is also the matter of visibility and the values of women’s empowerment represented by women leaderes. Female mayors are more frequently attacked in municipalities where gender quotas are enforced – suggesting a backlash in places where women achieve greater political representation.

Violence is even more common in municipalities where female mayors are not facing term limits, suggesting attacks on women mayors could even be specifically motivated by a desire to keep them out of power and influence.

And it seems to be an effective tactic. While women are just as likely as men to run for re-election, those who have been attacked are significantly less likely to do so. This indicates that violence discourages female politicians from seeking re-election, driving them out of office.

Addressing this issue requires long-term educational interventions to shift societal attitudes towards women leaders. In the short term, implementing stronger public safety measures for newly elected women is essential.

Gianmarco Daniele, Assistant Professor at University of Milan and Executive Director of the CLEAN Unit on the economics of crime at Bocconi University, Bocconi University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.