Don’t Blame Benefits for Inflation, Blame the Global Economy

BY SONALI KOLHATKARFacebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Headlines are screaming that inflation is here to stay.

U.S. consumer prices have risen by an average of 6.2 percent in the past year, the sharpest increase since 1991. Although Americans are supposedly — in the words of the New York Times — “flush with cash and jobs,” they are also deeply unhappy with the state of the economy.

It’s no wonder Republicans are thrilled and are drawing a line between inflation, public anxiety about the economy, and Joe Biden’s presidency.

What is surprising is that President Biden himself is helping them by citing his administration’s achievement of putting more money into people’s pockets as part of the explanation for the current spike in inflation.

In a November 10 speech, Biden said, “You all got checks for $1,400. You got checks for a whole range of things.” He went on to explain, “Well, with more people with money buying products and less product to buy, what happens? Prices go up.”

The New York Post, a conservative paper, jumped on the speech, claiming that the president “concedes his COVID stimulus checks fueled [the] spike in inflation.”

But the paper downplayed Biden’s assertion that “the supply chain is the reason.”

In fact, the president led his audience through a fairly clear explanation of how globalization works. By artificially driving down the cost of goods for decades, this far-flung system is especially vulnerable to disruptions like the pandemic.

As Biden explained, “Products like smartphones often bring together parts from France, Italy; chips from the Netherlands; touchscreens from New York State; camera components from Japan — a supply chain that crosses dozens of countries.”

“That’s just the nature of a modern economy,” he concluded. But should it be?

The massive web of consumer manufacturing isn’t a fact of nature. It’s a systematically deregulated system designed by multinational corporations to minimize the cost of materials and labor — and maximize their profits. This was precisely what the anti-globalization movements of the 1990s were protesting.

When Biden said in his speech that you “have to use wood from Brazil” and “graphite from India before it comes together at a factory in the United States to get a pencil,” he didn’t reveal that pencil manufacturers might be relying on illegal logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Nor did he mention that transporting goods from the far reaches of the globe generates massive carbon pollution.

Now, this system is hurting consumers too. In fact, they’ve been feeling the pinch for years.

Go back to polls conducted even before the pandemic — including a Gallup poll from 2018 and the General Social Survey from 2019 — and one can find widespread malaise about the state of the economy.

In other words, Americans have spent decades being disappointed with the sustained suppression of wages and increasingly insecure jobs. This is a direct consequence of the offshoring and deregulation accelerated by corporate globalization.

But instead of drawing the connection, conservative Republicans are blaming pandemic assistance and other government help, as though ending child care subsidies could restock store shelves. Conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is making similar assertions to justify stymying Biden’s proposals to expand government assistance.

A better takeaway from our current economic situation is that there is nothing natural about being at the mercy and whims of an economy designed by corporate profiteers for corporate profiteers.

We need to make the global economy fairer and more sustainable — not pull up the few remaining supports for American families.

 

Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV (Dish Network, DirecTV, Roku) and Pacifica stations KPFK, KPFA, and affiliates. 

Distinguishing Radical Liberation From Liberal Authoritarianism

BY KENN ORPHANFacebook

TwitterRedditEmail

“Puritanism has made life itself impossible. More than art, more than estheticism, life represents beauty in a thousand variations; it is indeed, a gigantic panorama of eternal change. Puritanism, on the other hand, rests on a fixed and immovable conception of life; it is based on the Calvinistic idea that life is a curse, imposed upon man by the wrath of God. In order to redeem himself man must do constant penance, must repudiate every natural and healthy impulse, and turn his back on joy and beauty.”

– Emma Goldman

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

– Albert Camus.

Since my last piece regarding the myth of “woke left fascism” I have received numerous messages and emails which seem to misunderstand much of what I wrote. So, I wanted to clarify. While there is no such thing as “left fascism,” I do not deny that there are authoritarian currents in what passes as the left today. These do not amount to fascism, but I think they do pose a threat to the democratic process and often aid the far right, as I will talk about below.

In today’s social media culture, radicalism is often reduced to performative social justice or virtue signalling. The way this works is through an impulse among many self-identified progressives (and some leftists) to amplify socially accepted ethics while policing the thought and speech of everyone else. I have seen this manifest in many forms, from “canceling” a person because they may express a divergent opinion regarding gender expression, or in “mob justice” mentality where a group of people gang up on one person online and troll them incessantly for expressing something that is considered unacceptable to today’s progressive sensibilities.

Certainly, the pandemic has exacerbated much of this as well. For instance, anyone who criticizes Big Pharma or discusses the well documented crimes of the medical establishment in the past may be cast unfairly as an “anti-vaxxer,” an ableist, or worse. I may have been guilty of some of this myself. It stems from a desire to find some order and meaning in a world where neither seldom exist and in an era of mistrust and misinformation. But there is an impulse to punish anyone who dissents from this “order” because they are perceived as a threat. And it usually isn’t very helpful at confronting unhinged conspiracy theories or dispelling false information.

I have witnessed some of this myself especially when it comes to topics like sex, gender and sexuality. Many progressive-minded people, primarily Americans from my experience, appear to be on a Victorian/puritanical crusade to purge culture and the world of anything that may be considered “abusive,” might “trigger” someone, or that may make them feel uncomfortable. An urge to shut down discourse or debate. Unfortunately, the #MeToo movement has contributed to this in a rather pernicious way. And no matter what radical veneer it might display, it is liberal authoritarianism at work.

To reiterate, while “woke fascism” is nonsense, progressive or liberal authoritarianism is not. And liberalism often plays handmaiden to real fascism. Back in the 1980s, self described “radical feminists” like Andrea Dworkin launched a crusade against pornography. In the process, she and others linked arms with conservatives and the far right. Like an echo from the Temperance movement of the early 20^th century, these women were merely repeating a similar narrative of reactionaries. Their narrow focus on abuse ended up stamping out much of the incredible progress made by sexual liberation movements in the 1970s.

To many of them, almost any expression of sex, sexuality and the human body were to be defined as oppressive, immoral, degenerate and traumatic. And all of this supposed “debauchery” required severe and draconian government action to surveil, censor and punish the so-called “offenders.” This episode was like a repeat of the notorious “Red Scare” of the McCarthy years where thousands of people where labeled “perverts” or “sexual deviants” and blacklisted from jobs. Countless lives were ruined. Families destroyed. Many committed suicide due to the trauma. And it demonstrated that puritanical crusades never really died in American society. One look at the vicious battle being waged against reproductive freedom and we can see it in action today.

In addition to echoing the Temperance movement, Dworkin and others like her ironically echoed Christian fundamentalists and Calvinists. Without a doubt, most pornography produced today is a product of capitalism. It is exploitative because capitalism is exploitative. But viewing it outside of this lens renders the issue hollow. It becomes just another liberal crusade that ends up aiding conservatives, evangelical Christians and the far right.

With religious zeal, Dworkin rained down fire and brimstone on any who dared deviate from her thin line of what was acceptable and what was obscene. Unsurprisingly, she gained enormous support from the Reagan administration and notoriously anti-gay bigots like James Dobson. Today, celebrated, self described radical feminists like Gail Dines and Julie Bindel appear to be repeating this, although now it is risibly being reframed as a “public health crisis.”

Ironically, it is often the elite in the LGBTQ community who appear to be taking up this crusade today. Since marriage equality passed in the US, bourgeois respectability politics have sadly gained ground too. Now, more than in the past, prominent, powerful and wealthy LGBTQ couples seek to mimic their heterosexual counterparts. Heteronormativity, along with shaming and virtue signaling, has become all the rage in some circles.

In truth, sexual “deviance” from the norm has always been looked at through the lens of Protestant Christian purity in the US. It is seen as something to suppress, police or expunge. And with so many prominent queer people clamouring to join the mundane cultural mainstream, the avantgarde and the different are increasingly being vanished or marginalized. But there is also an increasing conservativism within bourgeois LGBTQ circles which serves to perpetuate the oppressive systems of capitalist exploitation, class and nationalistic militarism. Just look to how many Pride Parades today are inundated with sponsors or contingents from corporations, banks, police and the military sector for an idea of how far it has gone.

Despite what many might argue, there is nothing radical about appealing to authority within a deeply authoritarian society. And while we recognize the silliness of “woke fascism,” we should not ignore the abuses of progressive or liberal authoritarianism masquerading as radicalism. Opposing societal ills like misogyny, homophobia and racism should never court censorship or echo reactionary structures of oppression.

The true radical experience should always be liberating for everyone, but especially the poor, the marginalized, and the powerless. It should ultimately condemn punitive ideologies of retributive justice, because wallowing in a state of perpetual victimhood or narcissistic woundedness only ends up serving the powerful by reinforcing their hierarchical worldview. Radical liberation revels in its creative imagination to transform society from a place of trauma to one of solidarity. And anything less than that is not worthy of our energy.

Kenn Orphan is an artist, sociologist, radical nature lover and weary, but committed activist. He can be reached at kennorphan.com.

How Do We Stop the Neocons From Starting Another Disaster in Ukraine?

BY JAMES W. CARDENFacebook

TwitterRedditEmail

If anything, Washington’s neoconservatives have an unerring instinct for survival. Having brought about multiple disasters in the two decades since 9/11—from the Iraq War to the twin debacles in Libya and Syria—the neoconservatives seem to have perfected the art of failing up.

Harvard University’s Stephen Walt once quipped that “Being a Neocon Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry.” And in this regard, the story of the Kagan family is instructive. Robert Kagan, a contributing columnist for the Washington Post, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of pseudohistories such as The Jungle Grows Back, has for years been a leading advocate of American militarism.

His brother, Frederick, is a resident scholar at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. Writing in the Hill on December 7, Frederick Kagan claimed that Russian control of Ukraine, “would create an existential threat to Poland and even to Romania—one that could be met only by major deployments of U.S. and European ground and air forces to what could become a new Iron Curtain.” He and his wife, Kimberly, who heads the Institute for the Study of War—another pro-war Washington think tank—were close advisers to the disgraced General and former CIA Director David Petraeus. Indeed, both Frederick and his wife are frequently cited as the brains behind the surge strategy pursued by George W. Bush’s administration in 2007-2008.

But the most powerful member of the Kagan clan is Victoria Nuland, who is the wife of Robert and is the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs. Under Obama, Nuland served as the State Department spokesperson, a position for which she was manifestly overqualified (and that becomes especially clear if one takes the qualifications of the current spokesman into consideration), before assuming the role of the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. It was in this role that Nuland helped orchestrate the overthrow of a democratically elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014 that led to a civil war in Ukraine, in which more than 13,000 people have died, according to the United Nations.

Part of the reason the U.S. is at grave risk of a war with Russia—and there is precious little debate about the policies that have brought us to this point—is that foreign policy in Washington is conducted by a virtually closed circle.

And that circle is dominated by people like the Kagans.

Washington’s legacy media organizations play their part in perpetuating these foreign policies as well by functioning as the permanent bureaucracy’s echo chamber. For proof, look no further than the Washington Post editorial page, which from the very start of the Ukraine crisis has been cavalierly dismissing calls for diplomacy and engagement and, instead, has been calling for outright war.

An example of this is the Washington Post view published on their editorial page on August 21, 2014:

“…it is tempting to look for a cease-fire or some kind of time out that would lead to a period of diplomatic negotiation. But what would a pause and diplomacy accomplish? Any negotiations that leave this blight festering in Ukraine must be avoided. The only acceptable solution is for Mr. Putin’s aggression to be reversed.”

As Jacob Heilbrunn, the editor of the National Interest, and I commented at the time, “Almost as bad as the callousness on display is the lack of candor. At no point did the [Washington] Post actually explain how it would propose to go about reversing Putin’s aggression.”

This remains the case even today. At no point do the armchair warriors braying for war with Russia over Ukraine discuss how such a “reversal” might be carried out, or, even more tellingly, what the odds might be of a successful outcome of a war between the U.S. and Russia.

Not much has changed since the start of the Ukrainian crisis nearly eight years ago. Consider for a moment the testimony on “Update on U.S.-Russia Policy” by Nuland made before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) on December 7.

Nuland testified that:

“We don’t know whether Russian President [Vladimir] Putin has made a decision to attack Ukraine or overthrow its government but we do know he is building the capacity to do so. Much of this comes right out of Putin’s 2014 playbook but this time, it is on a much larger and more lethal scale. So despite our uncertainty about exact intentions and timing, we must prepare for all contingencies, even as we push Russia to reverse course.”

Nuland went on to note that the U.S. government has given $2.4 billion to Ukraine since 2014 “in security assistance,” which included $450 million that was given in 2021 alone.

What, one wonders, has been the United States’ return on this massive investment?

SFRC Chairman Bob Menendez, who, in 2015, was indicted on federal corruption charges, seems to be under the impression that Russians do not have the overwhelming military advantage on their own border. Likewise, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) intoned that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would “require us [the U.S.] to escalate.”

Senator Todd Young (R-IN), meanwhile, pressed Nuland on “what measures are being considered by the administration to counter Russian aggression,” while Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) indicated that during her conversations with members of parliament (MP) from Estonia, they spoke about the importance of “European unity with respect to Ukraine.” Also, the MPs from Estonia along with Poland and other Eastern European countries expressed anxiousness about “whether or not to station more troops in the Baltic nations,” Senator Shaheen said.

The most astute comment of the day came from Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who was clearly proud that the committee had achieved a rare bipartisan agreement for a change. He further emphasized that the U.S. stands “united” in support of Ukraine and against Russia.

And Johnson was absolutely correct: The committee was completely united in its desire for conflict over Ukraine, with whom the U.S. has no treaty obligations whatsoever.

Indeed, both Nuland and the SFRC seem to see U.S. national interests where none exist. More worrying still, they seem to possess a kind of blind faith in America’s ability, indeed duty, to shape outcomes of conflicts that are taking place thousands of miles from our shores through a combination of sanctions and military threats.

The SFRC hearing showed, if nothing else, that American foreign policy is held hostage by a venal, avaricious and, above all, reckless claque of elites: From the members of the SFRC to the high U.S. government officials who testify before them; from the staffers who brief them to the scholars and policy hands on whom the staffers rely; right down to the reporters and journalists who uncritically regurgitate what they are told by their ‘anonymous’ administration sources.

As such, one of the most urgent questions before us is: How do Americans of good conscience finally break their stranglehold on power before it’s too late?

This article was produced by Globetrotter in partnership with the American Committee for U.S.-Russia Accord.

 

James W. Carden writes about foreign affairs from Washington, DC. His work has appeared in The American Conservative, American Affairs, The National Interest, and The Nation where he is a contributing writer.  

Tornadoes and Climate Change: What a Warming World Means for Deadly Twisters and the Type of Storms that Spawn Them

BY JOHN ALLENFacebook

TwitterRedditEmail

The deadly tornado outbreak that tore through communities from Arkansas to Illinois on the night of Dec. 10-11, 2021, was so unusual in its duration and strength, particularly for December, that a lot of people including the U.S. president are asking what role climate change might have played – and whether tornadoes will become more common in a warming world.

Both questions are easier asked than answered, but research is offering new clues.

I’m an atmospheric scientist who studies severe convective storms like tornadoes and the influences of climate change. Here’s what scientific research shows so far.

Climate models can’t see tornadoes yet – but they can recognize tornado conditions

To understand how rising global temperatures will affect the climate in the future, scientists use complex computer models that characterize the whole Earth system, from the Sun’s energy streaming in to how the soil responds and everything in between, year to year and season to season. These models solve millions of equations on a global scale. Each calculation adds up, requiring far more computing power than a desktop computer can handle.

To project how Earth’s climate will change through the end of the century, we currently have to use a broad scale. Think of it like the zoom function on a camera looking at a distant mountain. You can see the forest, but individual trees are harder to make out, and a pine cone in one of those trees is too tiny to see even when you blow up the image. With climate models, the smaller the object, the harder it is to see.

Tornadoes and the severe storms that create them are far below the typical scale that climate models can predict.

What we can do instead is look at the large-scale ingredients that make conditions ripe for tornadoes to form.

Two key ingredients for severe storms are (1) energy driven by warm, moist air promoting strong updrafts, and (2) changing wind speed and direction, known as wind shear, which allows storms to become stronger and longer-lived. A third ingredient, which is harder to identify, is a trigger to get storms to form, such as a really hot day, or perhaps a cold front. Without this ingredient, not every favorable environment leads to severe storms or tornadoes, but the first two conditions still make severe storms more likely.

By using these ingredients to characterize the likelihood of severe storms and tornadoes forming, climate models can tell us something about the changing risk.

How storm conditions are likely to change

Climate model projections for the United States suggest that the overall likelihood of favorable ingredients for severe storms will increase by the end of the 21st century. The main reason is that warming temperatures accompanied by increasing moisture in the atmosphere increases the potential for strong updrafts.

Rising global temperatures are driving significant changes for seasons that we traditionally think of as rarely producing severe weather. Stronger increases in warm humid air in fall, winter and early spring mean there will be more days with favorable severe thunderstorm environments – and when these storms occur, they have the potential for greater intensity.

What studies show about frequency and intensity

Over smaller areas, we can simulate thunderstorms in these future climates, which gets us closer to answering whether severe storms will form. Several studies have modeled changes to the frequency of intense storms to better understand this change to the environment.

We are already seeing evidence in the past few decades of shifts toward conditions more favorable for severe storms in the cooler seasons, while the summertime likelihood of storms forming is decreasing.

For tornadoes, things get trickier. Even in an otherwise spot-on forecast for the next day, there is no guarantee that a tornado will form. Only a small fraction of the storms produced in a favorable environment will produce a tornado at all.

Several simulations have explored what would happen if a tornado outbreak or a tornado-producing storm occurred at different levels of global warming. Projections suggest that stronger, tornado-producing storms may be more likely as global temperatures rise, though strengthened less than we might expect from the increase in available energy.

The impact of 1 degree of warming

Much of what we know about how a warming climate influences severe storms and tornadoes is regional, chiefly in the United States. Not all regions around the globe will see changes to severe storm environments at the same rate.

In a recent study, colleagues and I found that the rate of increase in severe storm environments will be greater in the Northern Hemisphere, and that it increases more at higher latitudes. In the United States, our research suggests that for each 1 degree Celsius (1.8 F) that the temperatures rises, a 14-25% increase in favorable environments is likely in spring, fall and winter, with the greatest increase in winter. This is driven predominantly by the increasing energy available due to higher temperatures. Keep in mind that this is about favorable environments, not necessarily tornadoes.

What does this say about December’s tornadoes?

To answer whether climate change influenced the likelihood or intensity of tornadoes in the December 2021 outbreak, it remains difficult to attribute any single event like this one to climate change. Shorter-term influences like the El Niño-Southern Oscillation may also complicate the picture.

There are certainly signals pointing in the direction of a stormier future, but how this manifests for tornadoes is an open area of research.

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

John Allen is Associate Professor of Meteorology at Central Michigan University.

How the Native American Population in the

 US Increased 87% Says More About

Whiteness Than About Demographics

BY CIRCE STURMFacebook

TwitterRedditEmail

The Native American population in the U.S. grew by a staggering 86.5% between 2010 and 2020, according to the latest U.S. Census – a rate demographers say is impossible to achieve without immigration.

Birth rates among Native Americans don’t explain the massive rise in numbers. And there certainly is no evidence of an influx of Native American expatriates returning to the U.S.

Instead, individuals who previously identified as white are now claiming to be Native American.

This growing movement has been captured by terms like “pretendian” and “wannabe.”

Another way to describe this recent adoption of Native American identity is what I call “racial shifting.”

These people are fleeing not from political and social persecution, but from whiteness.

I spent 14 years researching the topic and interviewing dozens of race-shifters for my book “Becoming Indian.” I learned that while some of these people have strong evidence of Native American ancestry, others do not.

Yet nearly all of the 45 people who were interviewed or surveyed for the book believe they have Indigenous ancestry and that it means something powerful about who they are and how they should live their lives. Only a tiny – but troubling – number makes blatantly fraudulent claims to advance their own interests.

History repeats

The search for meaning that characterizes racial shifting is part of an old American story.

Since the days of the Boston Tea Party, when nearly 100 American colonists dressed in Native American garb before throwing 95 tons of British tea into the Boston Harbor, white Americans have distinguished themselves from Europeans by selectively adopting Native American imagery and practices.

Yet as historian Philip Deloria argued in his 1998 book, “Playing Indian,” something happened in American society in the 1950s and 1960s that allowed white Americans greater freedom to appropriate nonwhite identities. White Americans, often with the encouragement of the counterculture and later New Age movements, began to seek new meanings in Indigenous cultures.

Those shifts are apparently reflected in U.S. Census data. The Native American population started increasing at a dramatic rate in the 1960s, growing from 552,000 to 9.7 million in 60 years. Prior to then, the Native American population had been relatively stable.

Backlash against assimilation

What distinguishes contemporary racial shifting from these earlier forms of appropriation is that most race shifters see themselves not as white people who “play Indian,” but as long-unrecognized American Indians who have been forced by historical circumstances to “play white.”

Many argue, for example, that their families avoided anti-Indian policies like removal by blending into white society.

This gradual but fundamental shift over the last 60 years suggests a seismic upheaval in the American racial landscape.

Racial shifting is a rejection of the centuries-long process of assimilation, when different racial and ethnic groups were pressured to adopt white norms of behavior as a way of fitting into an American society that was defined by them. Racial hierarchies that consistently place whiteness at the top are now being challenged.

When speaking to me about their former white lives, racial shifters often described a period of sadness when they searched for meaning and connection. Only when they began to look to their family histories did they realize all that had been lost when their families assimilated into whiteness. As one woman from Missouri put it: “They forced us to be white, act white, live white, and that is a very, very degrading feeling.”

The genealogical and historical details might not always be verifiable, but the emotions are real enough. It makes perfect sense that once race shifters link their melancholy to assimilation, they try to ease their sadness by rejecting whiteness and reclaiming an Indigenous status.

Whiteness devalued

Part of what accounts for these new sentiments are significant changes in the public’s discussion about race.

In the wake of 1960s civil rights activism and debates about multiculturalism, whiteness has taken on increasingly negative connotations.

In my interviews with race shifters, for example, they frequently associated their former whiteness with racial and cultural emptiness.

As one woman put it: “We had an emptiness inside of us, that we did not know who we were or what we were.” They also associated whiteness with social isolation, unearned privilege and guilt over colonialism and slavery.

Today there is growing insecurity about what it means to be white in America. We see this being expressed in public debates about white fragility, affirmative action and colorblind policies. Of course, there’s still much security in being white: White privilege is an ongoing reality of American life, and something most white people and white racial shifters take for granted.

This shift from white to Indigenous self-identification is, I believe, fundamentally about a desire to leave behind the negative connotations of whiteness and move toward the material and symbolic values that now attach to Native American identity.

‘Attack on our sovereignty’

If you listen only to racial shifters, this growing trend could be seen as a progressive move that challenges the legacy of a racist system.

Yet the citizens of federally recognized tribes offer a different interpretation.

Most view anyone who self-identifies as Native American without being an enrolled citizen of a federally recognized tribe as a threat to tribal sovereignty. As Richard Allen, a former policy analyst with the Cherokee Nation, told me, “Not only is that an insult, but it’s also an attack on our sovereignty as Cherokee people, as the Cherokee Nation.”

Among American Indians, the term sovereignty is used to assert ongoing rights of political self-determination. Because tribes have the sovereign right to determine their own citizenry, American Indian identity is fundamentally a political status, not a racial one, a fact that is often overlooked in debates about Indigenous identity.

Racial shifters also undermine tribal sovereignty when they create alternative tribes for themselves outside the federal acknowledgment process. Most of these groups, such as the Echota Cherokee Tribe or the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, have emerged since the late 1970s.

The number of these new self-identified tribes is startling. Over the course of my research, I discovered 253 groups scattered across the U.S. that identify as some sort of Cherokee tribe.

This is a huge number considering that there are only 573 federally recognized tribes, three of which are Cherokee.

Racial shifting is a growing demographic trend that is creating confusion in the public sphere about who is Native American and who isn’t. But its threat is far greater than just social confusion.

Native Americans and their governments face thousands of race-shifters seeking to join their ranks. And as more and more people reject whiteness in favor of indigeneity, they do so at the expense of tribal sovereignty.

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