Pro-Conquest film fuels debate in Mexico over colonial legacy

Mexico City (AFP) – A Spanish documentary extolling the virtues of the country's conquest of the Americas now showing in Mexico has added fuel to a politically charged debate over the legacy of colonialism.


Issued on: 12/10/2024 - 17:53

Mexico's new president Claudia Sheinbaum (C) speaks after receiving a ceremonial staff from Indigenous people at Mexico City's Zocalo Square on October 1, 2024 

© MARIO VAZQUEZ / AFP/File


"Hispanic America: A Song of Life and Hope" by Spanish director Jose Luis Lopez-Linares claims to offer "a new vision" of the colonial period.

Shot in Mexico, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, it depicts the Spanish as having had a civilizing impact on the Americas, bequeathing a proud heritage of Catholicism and art, including lofty Baroque-inspired Spanish colonial architecture.

It makes no mention of the abuses committed in the name of evangelizing the Indigenous peoples of the New World.

The film's release in Mexico comes hot on the heels of a fallout between Mexico's new president Claudia Sheinbaum and the Spanish government.

Sheinbaum outraged Madrid by barring Spanish King Felipe VI from her inauguration ceremony earlier this month for failing to apologize for atrocities committed during the 1519-1521 Conquest of Mexico and the ensuing three centuries of colonial rule.

"It's a rubbish, manipulative and racist piece of propaganda that attempts to rewrite history," Mexican journalist Jose Juan de Avila, who attended a VIP screening of the film this week in Mexico City, complained to AFP.
Competing narratives

The film's release also coincided with the anniversary of Italian-born explorer Christopher Columbus's arrival in the New World on October 12, 1492, which paved the way for the colonization of the Americas.

The date is a national holiday in Spain, where it is widely known as Hispanic Day.

But in Mexico and other Latin American countries it is known as Dia de la Raza (Day of the Race), a commemoration of native resistance against the Conquest and of cultural diversity.

"The Conquest was a violent act," Sheinbaum reiterated on Wednesday, adding that she wanted to "reconstruct the past" to strengthen relations between Spain and Mexico.

For Spanish author Carlos Martinez Shaw, the film draws on the ideology promoted by late Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who pushed the "unbridled glorification" of colonialism.

Some Mexicans, however, subscribe to the view advanced in Lopez-Linares's documentary that the Conquest was a source of enlightenment.

When Avila, the journalist, challenged the director at the screening for his "shameful" depiction of the colonial period, he was shouted down by audience members, mostly Mexicans of European descent.

Juan Miguel Zuzunegui, a philosopher and staunch defender of Mexico's Hispanic heritage who is interviewed in the film, called it a message of "love in the face of hate speech."
'Heroes and saints'

Mesoamerica, a region that comprised parts of Mexico and Central America, had an estimated population of 15 million to 30 million people when conquistador Hernan Cortes arrived with an army of several hundred men, bringing horses, swords, guns -- and smallpox -- in 1519.

After a century of battles, massacres and plagues, only an estimated one million to two million Indigenous inhabitants remained.

The debate over the Conquest "remains very heated" in Mexico, Federico Navarrete, a historian at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, told AFP.

It raises uncomfortable questions about the "privilege" enjoyed by Mexicans of European origin and on "the inequalities that still exist in Mexico" between people with light and dark skin, he added.

In Spain, where King Felipe attended the film's premiere in April, the legacy of colonialism was also publicly debated in the run-up to Hispanic Day.

Activists from a militant Catholic association put up posters defending the 16th-century "conquistadors" in public spaces in Madrid, Valencia, Toledo and other cities.

"Neither genocidal nor slave traders, but heros and saints. Happy Hispanic Day!" the posters read.

Mexican historian Alfredo Avila said that the debate was being stoked on either side of the Atlantic for domestic political gain.

"There are nationalist interests at stake in both cases," he said.

Around the world, former colonial powers are coming under pressure to face up to the less glorious chapters of their past.

Emmanuel Macron deeply upset conservatives in France when he declared during his 2017 presidential campaign that his country's colonization of Algeria was a "crime against humanity."

© 2024 AFP

The world’s three biggest nuclear hotspots in 2024


Senior Russian security official Dmitry Medvedev said today that Russia was not bluffing when it spoke of the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine and warned Moscow’s conflict with the West could escalate into all-out war. — Reuters pic
Join us on our WhatsApp Channel, follow us on Instagram, and receive browser alerts for the latest news you need to know.

Sunday, 13 Oct 2024 

PARIS, Oct 13 — After Japan’s anti-nuclear group Nihon Hidankyo won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, here is an overview of today’s biggest nuclear hotspots.

Russian threat, amid Ukraine war


Since invading neighbouring Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has on several occasions brandished the threat of atomic weapons against Kyiv’s Western allies.

On September 25, President Vladimir Putin proposed changes to the nuclear doctrine that would allow it to launch a nuclear response to a “massive launch of air and space attack weapons”.


Aggression against Russia by a non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear power would be seen as a joint attack.


Putin did not specifically mention Ukraine, a non-nuclear state, but it was clearly referenced as Kyiv is seeking permission to launch US-made long-range missiles into Russia.

In mid-2023, Russia deployed tactical nuclear weapons to its ally Belarus, which also borders Ukraine.


Its army in May launched drills near Ukraine on the use of tactical nuclear weapon in response to perceived threats from Western nations.

Russia captured the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in southern Ukraine, Europe’s biggest atomic facility, soon after its invasion.

The plant has come under repeated attacks that both sides have accused each other of carrying out.

North Korean exercises

North Korea considers South Korea its “principal enemy”.

At a time when Pyongyang is boosting its military ties with Russia, leader Kim Jong Un’s regime has staged dozens of ballistic missile launches and sent thousands of trash-filled balloons into its neighbour’s air space this year.

Earlier this month, he said his country would use nuclear weapons “without hesitation” if attacked by the South and its United States ally, state media reported.

North Korea in September released images of its uranium enrichment facility for the first time.

Defying United Nations sanctions, Kim, who carried out six nuclear tests from 2006 to 2017, said in September his country was moving to steadily increase its nuclear arsenal.

According to the state news agency, in April Kim supervised the first simulated nuclear launch exercises in response to air exercises between the non-nuclear-armed South and the US, which protects it under its nuclear umbrella.

In January, Pyongyang announced having tested an underwater nuclear weapon system.

North Korea in 2022 declared itself an “irreversible” nuclear power, a status enshrined in the constitution in 2023.

Israel-Iran trade warnings

Israel regards Iran’s nuclear facilities as an existential threat and has promised a “deadly, precise and surprising” response after Iran launched its second-ever direct strike on Israeli territory on October 1.

US President Joe Biden has warned Israel against striking nuclear infrastructure, while Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said the opposite.



Israel is the Middle East’s only — if undeclared — nuclear-armed state. 

— Reuters pic


Tehran has promised “an even stronger response” to an attack on its nuclear infrastructure.

More than three dozen hardline Iranian lawmakers on Thursday called on supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wields ultimate authority in Iran, to reconsider his long-standing religious edict or fatwa banning nuclear weapons.

Tehran insists its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful and designed to produce energy.

A 2015 deal with major powers curbing Tehran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanction relief fell apart in 2018, when then US president Trump pulled his country out.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran has significantly ramped up its nuclear programme and now has enough material to build more than three atomic bombs.

Israel is the Middle East’s only — if undeclared — nuclear-armed state.

 — AFP

Pakistan’s Ban On Prominent Civil Rights Group Will ‘Alienate’ Pashtun Minority – Analysis

Manzoor Pashteen (center), the leader of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement, is inaugurated at a jirga, or assembly, on September 29. Photo Credit: RFE/RL

 October 13, 2024 

By RFE RL

By Abubakar Siddique

(RFE/RL) — Pakistan’s decision to ban a prominent civil rights organization will further alienate the country’s large Pashtun ethnic minority, experts say.

The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), a grassroots movement that advocates for the rights of Pakistan’s estimated 40 million Pashtuns, was designated a “proscribed organization” on October 6 for allegedly undermining security in the South Asian country of some 240 million people.

Rights groups say the ban is aimed at silencing the PTM, which has accused the government and the powerful military of committing human rights abuses against civilians in northwestern Pakistan, a militant stronghold.

Analysts say the ban could push the PTM to abandon its nonviolent campaign and further destabilize the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where many Pashtuns live.

“It’s going to make Pashtuns much more apprehensive of the state,” said Ayesha Siddiqa, senior fellow at King’s College London. “There’s going to be greater resentment and frustration.”

Since its emergence in 2018, the PTM has accused the army of using heavy-handed tactics, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances, against civilians during counterterrorism operations against militant groups in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The province has been the scene of numerous operations against the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) extremist group that have killed thousands of Pashtun civilians and uprooted millions in the past two decades.

Siddiqa said the ban on the PTM was a “knee-jerk reaction” by Pakistan’s military, which has an oversized role in the country’s domestic and foreign affairs. Its traditional dominance of politics has been undermined in recent years by civil rights organizations like the PTM and opposition political parties.

“PTM is a political movement, and that is something which the state finds much more difficult to control,” Siddiqa added.

In recent years, the authorities have arrested and jailed the leaders and hundreds of members of the PTM, whose rallies often attract tens of thousands of people.

Widespread Condemnation

The government’s ban on the PTM has been widely condemned.

Amnesty International on October 8 called on Islamabad to revoke the ban, which it termed “an affront to the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.”

Two days earlier, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an independent rights watchdog, had criticized what it said was “the government’s decision to proscribe the PTM, a rights-based movement that has never resorted to violence and always used the framework of the Constitution to advocate its cause.”

The PTM has said that over 200 of its members have been arrested in recent days ahead of a jirga, or assembly, planned for October 11-13.

Two days before the assembly, police clashed with PTM supporters in the northwestern town of Jamrud, using tear gas and batons to disperse the crowd. At least four PTM activists were killed in the clashes.

Despite the ban on the PTM, the provincial government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has permitted the group to hold the assembly. On October 11, the provincial authorities said they will urge the central government to revoke the ban.

“The PTM has been raising very legitimate demands,” said Farhatullah Babar, a former lawmaker and leader of the secular Pakistan People’s Party.

He said the army and government have consistently reneged on promises it made to the PTM, including the removal of military checkpoints in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the clearance of landmines, and the release of civilians forcibly disappeared by the state.

“Stifling its voice will go down very badly with the entire Pashtun people,” said Babar. “I think that this will alienate people even more. The incentives for them to remain peaceful will now decrease.”

• Abubakar Siddique, a journalist for RFE/RL’s Radio Azadi, specializes in the coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is the author of The Pashtun Question: The Unresolved Key To The Future Of Pakistan And Afghanistan. He also writes the Azadi Briefing, a weekly newsletter that unpacks the key issues in Afghanistan.

 

Do Political Parties Understand The Depth Of The Bangladesh Revolution? – OpEd

 October 13, 2024 

By Dr. Mawdudur Rahman and Dr. Habib Siddiqui

The students and the common people of Bangladesh dared to do something in 36 days of July-August that was considered simply impossible by most area experts just days before August 5. They said ‘enough is enough’ to an old order that insulted their humanity, robbed their dignity and imagined their citadel of power simply impenetrable. They refused to bow down to a murderous regime that knew no bounds to its cruelty and plunder of the country. They were ready to sacrifice their precious lives for the greater good of the nation.  More than a thousand died, and countless others injured. 

Abu Sayeed, a Rokeya University student, was killed by Hasina’s police on July 16. An image is worth a thousand words. It was Abu Sayeed’s image, standing with a stick in his hand, which became the signature statement of this revolution. His unprovoked murder opened the floodgate of revolution for others to join in. A protesting female student said, “I will not go back. The police  are behind me and victory is in front of me. I’m going  forward to win or die.”  Anas, a school student, wrote a letter to his mother before going to participate in the revolution. Each word written in his notebook is like a protest of fire and deep feeling. He, too, was killed by police firing. 

Bangladeshi nation will never forget all these martyrs. Their stories would be shared and retold in school textbooks. They will be the conscience  of the nation for ages. Their immense sacrifices cannot be compared with those of the past movements. They defeated a tyrant, the worst that Bangladesh ever endured. The student protesters were joined by the old and the young, male and female, Muslims and non-Muslims, rich and poor alike. It was a people’s movement for an irreversible change. 

And yet, some political parties, like  the BNP, have a different  outlook. Their party members have promptly replaced the Awami League extortionists, goons and thugs and taken  control of college canteens, intercity transport, ferry terminals, hawker markets, and even waste collections. Obviously, they want to occupy the centers of corruption for  illegal gains in the empty field. 

Do these political party bosses or members understand the depth of this revolution? Why did people rise up? Apparently, they don’t understand. 

If they had understood the crux of the message of the revolution, they would not have called public meetings asking  for  a quick election. Their priority should, instead, be to present their economic and social plans for transformation of a new nation meeting the aspirations of the people, especially 70 million youths of Bangladesh who alone bore the burden of revolution. The ‘new Bangladesh’ doesn’t need the stinking old politics of the bygone days. 

This revolution is unique in so many ways. It is a revolution in the digital age that is rooted in meta-modernist philosophy. The old political leadership with its moribund appeal and bankrupt philosophy are irrelevant in this agenda. As Professor Yunus, the Chief Advisor to the Interim Government, has rightly said, ‘Now is the era of a new generation’. 

Meta-modernism is the cultural philosophy of the digital age, coined by Mas’ud Zavarzadeh in 1975. Since then, the term has become popular and is often discussed on the internet. In the American context, if modernism is associated with the Age of Radio or ‘make it new’, post-modernism is the Age of Television (1945-2005) or skepticism and moral relativism, and meta-modernism is the Age of the Internet or more balanced worldview. As one analyst puts it, we went from modernism — “Make it new!” Let’s shape History! – to postmodernism — everything sucks! Nothing really matters! — to meta-modernism – maybe things are not this black-and-white, maybe there’s a middle ground.

Meta-modernist thinkers are outside the framework of modernism and post-modernism. They perceive the present world around them as a threat to their very existence. They work with pragmatic idealism and have no grand narrative thinking or any orthodox certainties. In other words, they try to strike a balance between all of this. They recognize that they have to face the problems of the society, and they cannot work for everyone unless they face problems directly. 

Arguably, all the activities of Bangladeshi revolutionists including  their wall posters, followed a framework of Meta-Modernism. It is understood that the new Bangladesh is defined in a new ideology. Student revolutionaries have said that our ideology is reflected through the language we use. The basis of the new ideology is language. It is a revolution of change from the cultural context of fascist imperialist language to the practical language of the people. In other words, new ideals will be reflected through language. 

It would be wrong to think that this people’s revolution was all about a change of government. Its victory is unlike 1947 and 1971. In both those cases, there was a change of government without any structural change. As a result, the incoming government followed imperialist practices of exploitation left behind  by the British. Subsequent governments turned the country into a failed democracy, in order to control, exploit and subjugate its citizens. The police were used as an enabling force to subjugate the citizens, while the legislature and judiciary worked as the rubber stamps to sustain the total control of the government. This evil social system has corrupted the mindset and behavior of our people. An immoral society was formed with no fear of accountability, whose driving force was unfathomed greed and mantra — the ‘rule and exploitation by repression’. Government employees saw themselves as bosses and not as public servants. They thrived upon corruption at all levels. And in that process, they committed the twin evil of crime against their very nafs and the society at large that raised them. 

Nothing good can come out of a decaying system without a thorough cleanup of corrupt people with deranged  mentality, norms and values. 

There are now two competing ideologies in front of Bangladesh – one of decaying fascism that wants to resurface under old leadership and the other is the young leadership of equality and morality. As the revolution demonstrated, the ‘New Bangladesh’ does not approve  fascist-supporting corrupt institutions. It desires a corruption-free new society. It is for paradigm shift – a transformational change for the better. 

The Chief Advisor and Student Coordinators have clearly highlighted the ideals of New Bangladesh through their speeches and interviews. Dr. Yunus said, ‘We are all one nation’. This is a clarion call to establish a holistic change in society. Such a radical change in society requires a change in values. A change in values lies in the change in public ideology, which requires a dedicated leader and a revivalist. 

The new Bangladesh is not the old Bangladesh with a new cover. It demands a change in the fundamental values of human behavior, actions, and beliefs. These include structural changes, personal changes, expectations, and experiences. 

To understand the ideology of this change, one has to listen carefully to the speech of Mahfuz Alam, the ‘thinker’ of the movement. Five points can be deduced from his  recent talks: (1) unity, (2) ‘language is their inspiration’, (3) group leadership, (4) they are children of time,  and that (5)  they are not a slave to traditional thinking. His views reflect today’s meta-modernism, which is beyond post-modernism.

For any transformational change to succeed, the change agents must own it, direct it, and ultimately excel in it. We think that this revolution of holistic change can benefit from the revolutionary approaches adopted in China and Cuba that were also led by youths. They owned the revolution and ran the government with dedicated cadre of volunteers. They did not allow it to be hijacked by charlatans and reactionaries. We see some of these characteristics in the minds and mission of the Bangladeshi revolutionaries.

Bottom line, bringing a change of the old habits, values and culture in a society will not be an easy task. This revolution has presented an opportunity to change the destiny of Bangladesh as never before. Through their sacrifice, Bangladeshis have demonstrated that they  want to move forward. 

The meta-modernist youths of Bangladesh have come to lead and move forward; they will not go back to the old ways. Their message is clear: if you do not join us, the country will not wait for you. If older generations do not adopt this view of change, we fear further instability, whose outcome will not be pleasant.

If the vanguards of the old political systems want to remain relevant, they need to rethink, reevaluate, reinvent and reposition themselves as servant-leaders and reformulate their agenda in line with the aspirations of the revolution. The sooner the better. 

• About the authors: Dr. Mawdudur Rahman, Professor Emeritus, Suffolk University, Boston, USA. He can be contacted at: mrahman@suffolk.edu. Dr. Habib Siddiqui is a peace and human rights activists. His latest book – ‘Bangladesh: a polarized and divided nation?’ is available in the Amazon.com. Both are members of the steering committee of Esho Desh Gori – Let’s Build Bangladesh.

Protest in Bangladesh. Photo Credit: Rayhan9d, Wikipedia Commons

Despite Trump’s claims, data shows migrants aren’t taking jobs from Black or Hispanic people

Oct 12, 2024 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump promises the biggest deportation event the U.S. has ever seen if he is elected — a promise he has predicated, in part, on the notion that immigrants in the U.S. legally and illegally are stealing what he calls “Black jobs” and “Hispanic jobs.”

WATCH: Trump pushes false narrative of rising migrant crime at Colorado rally

But government data show immigrant labor contributes to economic growth and provides promotional opportunities for native-born workers. And a mass deportation event would cost U.S. taxpayers up to a trillion dollars and could cause the cost of living, including food and housing, to skyrocket, economists say.

Here’s a look at immigration and the U.S. labor market, and what Trump’s plan would mean for the U.S. economy.
What has Trump said?

Trump, who often uses anti-immigrant rhetoric, has referred during his campaign to immigrants he says are taking “Black jobs” and “Hispanic jobs.”

At a recent rally in Reading, Pennsylvania, Trump said, “You have an invasion of people into our country.”

“They’re going to be attacking — and they already are — Black population jobs, the Hispanic population jobs, and they’re attacking union jobs too,” Trump said. “So when you see the border, it’s not just the crime. Your jobs are being taken away too.”

Trump’s rhetoric about jobs has been widely condemned by Democrats and Black leaders who have called it a racist and insulting way of implying that Black and Hispanic Americans take menial jobs.

WATCH: Who’s going to tell Trump that he’s campaigning for a ‘Black’ job, Michelle Obama asks

Janiyah Thomas, the director of Team Trump Black Media, told The Associated Press that Democrats “continue to prioritize the interests of illegal immigrants over our own Black Americans who were born in this country” and that Biden-era job gains in the labor market were primarily due to illegal immigration.

The latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey data shows that as of 2023, native-born Black workers are most predominantly employed in management and financial operations, sales and office support roles, while native-born Latino workers are most often employed in management, office support, sales and service occupations.

Foreign-born, noncitizen Black workers are most often represented in transportation and health care support roles, and foreign-born, noncitizen Hispanic workers are most often represented in construction, building and grounds cleaning.
How has immigration contributed to U.S. growth?

In 2023, international migrants — primarily from Latin America — accounted for more than two-thirds of the population growth in the United States, and so far this decade they have made up almost three-quarters of U.S. growth.

After hitting a record high in December 2023, the number of migrants crossing the border has plummeted.

The claim that immigrants are taking employment opportunities from native-born Americans is repeated by Trump’s advisers. They often cite a report produced by Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a right-leaning think tank that seeks a reduced immigration flow into the U.S. The report combines job numbers for immigrants in the U.S. legally and illegally to reinforce the claim that foreigners are disproportionately driving U.S. labor growth and reaping most of the benefits.

Camarota’s report states that 971,000 more U.S.-born Americans were employed in May 2024 compared to May 2019, prior to the pandemic, while the number of employed immigrants has increased by 3.2 million.

It is true that international migrants have become a primary driver of population growth this decade, increasing their share of the overall population as fewer children are being born in the U.S. compared with years past. That’s according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey.
Are immigrants taking native-born workers’ jobs?

Economists who study immigrant labor’s impact on the economy say that people who are in the U.S. illegally are not taking native citizens’ jobs, because the roles that these immigrant workers take on are most often positions that native workers are unwilling to fill, such as agriculture and food processing jobs.

Giovanni Peri, a labor economist at the University of California, Davis, conducted research that explores the impact of the 1980 influx of Cuban immigrants in Miami (the so-called Mariel Boatlift) on Black workers’ employment. The study determined that the wages of Miami’s Black and Hispanic workers moved above those in other cities that did not have a surge of immigrant workers.

Peri told the AP that the presence of new immigrant labor often improves employment outcomes for native-born workers, who often have different language and skill sets compared to new immigrants.

In addition, there are not a fixed number of jobs in the U.S., immigrants tend to contribute to the survival of existing firms (opening up new opportunities for native workers) and there are currently more jobs available than there are workers available to take them. U.S. natives have low interest in working in labor-intensive agriculture and food production roles.

WATCH: Immigrant workers face routine injuries, lack of protections on U.S. dairy farms

“We have many more vacancies than workers in this type of manual labor, in fact we need many more of them to fill these roles,” Peri said.

Stan Marek, who employs roughly 1,000 workers at his Houston construction firm, Marek Brothers Holdings LLC, said he has seen this firsthand.

Asked if immigrants in the U.S. illegally are taking jobs from native-born workers, he said, “Absolutely not, unequivocally.”

“Many of my workers are retiring, and their kids are not going to come into construction and the trades,” Marek said. He added that the U.S. needs an identification system that addresses national security concerns so those who are in the country illegally can work.

“There’s not enough blue-collar labor here,” he said.

Data also shows when there are not enough workers to fill these roles, firms will automate their jobs with machines and technology investments, rather than turn to native workers.

Dartmouth College economist Ethan Lewis said, “There is a vast amount of research on the labor market impact of immigration in the U.S., most of which concludes the impact on less-skilled workers is fairly small and, if anything, jobs for U.S.-born workers might by created rather than ‘taken’ by immigrants.”
How would mass deportations affect the economy?

Trump has said he would focus on rounding up migrants by deploying the National Guard, whose troops can be activated on orders of a governor.

Peri says a deportation program would cost the U.S. up to a trillion dollars and would result in massive losses to the U.S. economy. The cost of food and other basic items would soar.

“They are massive contributors to our economy and we wouldn’t have fruits and vegetables, we wouldn’t have our gardens,” he said, if the deportation effort comes to fruition.

READ MORE: Trump has promised mass raids and deportation if he wins the election. The ACLU is preparing to fight back

Since the labor force made up of people in the U.S. illegally makes up roughly 4 percent of U.S. GDP annually, he estimates that mass deportation would result in a roughly $1 trillion loss.

“It’s a cost that is mind-boggling in terms of income loss, production loss and there will be a logistical cost to organize this,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said this month in a podcast interview with David Axelrod that immigrant labor “is an important source of labor force growth.”

“On balance, it helps the economy grow without actually depriving other people of jobs,” she said. “It’s not in any way a zero-sum game.”

Right-Wing Watch

‘Barbieland’ and the rise of the far-right in Europe

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Yesterday

LEFT FOOT FORWARD


To maintain the democratic values that the EU was built on, leaders like Starmer must reject the normalisation of xenophobia and work towards a more inclusive and unified society

.

‘Barbieland’ – a matriarchal, asexual utopia where Mattel dolls live in harmony. Greta Gerwig’s fictional world in the 2023 film Barbie might seem far removed from the political and economic alliance of the European Union, but some observers are drawing a comparison between the two. To them, today’s EU resembles Barbieland, a place that perceives itself as more perfect than it is. They argue that the rise of far-right movements across Europe challenges this utopic illusion.

Austria is the latest European country to succumb to the lure of the far-right. Having led in the polls since 2022, the anti-immigration Freedom Party’s (FPÖ) victory in Austria’s national elections was expected. The Eurosceptic party took 29 percent of the vote, just ahead of the Conservatives with 26 percent. In a distant third, the Social Democrats secured only 21 percent, marking their worst result in history. For some thinkers, the result underlines the shallowness of the ‘Barbieland’ illusion, with internal tensions threatening to fracture the EU’s veneer of unity and harmony.

The FPÖ was founded by a group of Nazis after World War II. It has previously held power as a junior partner in short-lived coalition governments with the centre-right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) in 2000 and 2017. Its leader, Herbert Kickl, has been branded as “Volkskanzler” or “people’s chancellor,” by his party, a term the Nazis used to describe Hitler. Kickl ran an anti-foreigner campaign, vowing to erect a “Fortress Austria” to keep out migrants. 2024 marked the first time the party has finished first in a national election.

A ‘paranoid tabloid agenda’

The result is part of a broader surge of far-right populism across Europe, where nationalist Eurosceptic parties are gaining ground. Like other European countries experiencing a rise in far-right influence, Austria’s political discourse has become increasingly toxic.

As reported by Social Europe, a “paranoid tabloid agenda” dominates the media, with immigration, security, and crime consistently grabbing headlines. The coverage often portrays immigration and violence as interchangeable, advancing what Social Europe describes as a “paranoid mindset” entrenched in Austrian political culture.

Austria’s shift to the far-right mirrors a similar trend in Germany. In September, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) celebrated a “historic success,” winning a significant victory in the eastern state of Thuringia. The AfD secured nearly a third of the vote, placing them nine points ahead of the conservative CDU and far ahead of Germany’s three governing parties. The party also came a close second in two other states, Saxony and Brandenburg. This marked the far-right’s first win in a state parliament election since World War II, though the AfD has little chance of forming a government in Thuringia, as other parties are unlikely to collaborate with them.

The outcomes in Austria and Germany cap off a year of far-right gains across Europe. In September 2023, Robert Fico, known for his opposition to Brussels, won Slovakia’s elections and quickly formed a government. A few months later, Geert Wilders, the anti-Islam leader of the Freedom Party (PVV), topped the polls in the Netherlands. His party later formed a cabinet that pledged to implement the country’s toughest-ever policies on law, order, and immigration.

In May, France’s President Emmanuel Macron suffered a humiliating defeat, when Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) achieved its best-ever result in the European parliament. The result prompted Macron to dissolve the French parliament.

How the far-right wins will affect the policies of the EU

The pressing question is of course, how will gains by the far right effect the European Parliament and the EU. For some thinkers, the growing influence of far-right parties in the 2024 European Parliament elections will have notable implications for EU policies. In a report on the European elections by the independent policy institute Chatham House, the authors argue that while far-right parties made gains, especially in Italy, France, and Germany, their ability to affect real change depends on how unified they can be, as they remain divided on key issues like Ukraine and fiscal policies. Nevertheless, their increased presence will influence several policy areas, including migration, climate, EU powers and integration, and foreign policy and defense.

‘Barbieland’ and the EU’s ‘blind spots’

In its report, Welcome to Barbieland: European sentiment in the year of wars and elections, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) uses Barbie as an analogy for Europe’s current political climate. In the film, Barbie discovers that her self-perception is at odds with the real world, where her role as a feminist icon is criticised. Barbie realises that Barbieland is not the paradise she once believed it to be.

The ECFR draws parallels between Barbie’s “dystopia” and the “blind spots” of European leaders, which reveal a gap between the EU’s Enlightenment ideals and its political realities. These blind spots, the report warns, could ultimately weaken the foundations of democracy within the EU.

One of the blind spots identified in the report is the EU’s ‘whiteness’.’ It singles out the lack of diversity on candidate lists for the European Parliament, with less than 20 non-white candidates ultimately being elected in June’s European elections.

“Not only did the candidate lists in the European Parliament election fail to reflect the diverse character of European society, but anti-immigration discourse also flourished in the campaigns in most member states.

“For many non-white or Muslim Europeans, this would have exacerbated existing worries, including about discrimination after Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023,” reads the report.

This suggests that as a result, non-white Europeans or those from migrant backgrounds may have felt disconnected from the democratic process.

Central and Eastern Europe

Another ‘blind spot’ identified in the ‘Barbieland’ model is a subdued pro-European sentiment in central and Eastern Europe, which may reflect a re-evaluation of what it means to be European. The report notes how this region witnessed a low turnout for the European Parliament election, the normalised presence of Eurosceptic parties and attitudes, and low-key celebrations of the 20th anniversary of joining the bloc.

The ECFR links this lack of enthusiasm to a spike in Eurosceptic attitudes, which far-right parties seize upon.

“Rather than pointing to these countries’ sense of marginalisation, this evolution of European sentiment may – to the contrary – reflect a newly acquired self-confidence. This, in turn, is underpinned by a vision of Europe that differs from that of the EU in its current guise,” states the report.

A disconnected youth

A third area of concern identified in the report is a disconnection among young people, with 18 – 29-year-olds being underrepresented in voter turnout in recent elections. While young people are believed to be more pro-European and socially tolerant than older generations, many young Europeans did not turn out to vote in the European elections – and, when they did, they often opted for far-right or anti-establishment alternatives.

“The question here is whether increasingly normalised xenophobia in the EU is not driving some young people away from the European project, while at the same time habituating others to an ‘ethnic’ conception of Europeanness – and thus easing their path towards supporting the far-right.”

The authors urge pro-Europeans to acknowledge these blind spots, give a voice to underrepresented groups, and reverse the drift towards an ‘ethnic’ conception of Europeanness by “reconstructing a ‘civic’ offer that upholds the foundational values of the EU.” They argue that many pro-European politicians are only paying ‘lip service’ to the EU’s foundational values of universalism, equality, and secularism. At the same time, they are presenting immigration from Africa and Asia as a threat to European “civilisation”, or the Muslim population as a security risk for Europe.

The report notes how some European leaders may have concluded that cultivating this contradiction is the only way to win re-election. Creating stricter migration management rules which formed part of the EU’s pact on migration and asylum may be seen by the European mainstream to neutralise the far-right. But the authors warn that this is dangerous, as in several member states, especially in central and Eastern Europe, xenophobic discourse has encountered barely any resistance from politicians, the media, and intellectual elites.

“This contributes to its normalisation. And young generations are growing up witnessing all this, potentially leading to disillusionment with the EU for some or affiliation with the far-right for others.”

The ECFR is urging pro-Europeans to resist the short-term electoral or strategic temptation of staying quiet about the ‘ethnic’ conception of Europeanness, and instead unambiguously oppose and reject it.

“Responsible politicians should be able to call xenophobia by its name and explain to the public that certain opinions that they share or tolerate run contrary to their own interests.”

Which of course, is easier to say than realise politically faced with a toxic legacy and social media with vested ideological and economic interests in promoting dystopia.

Looking to Switzerland

However, there are grounds for hope too which sometimes lies with the complex nature of democracy. Take Switzerland for example, where xenophobia found an early home. The surge in right-wing populists in Europe has been pinned on the mirroring of the successful models of their sister parties, notably the Swiss People’s Party (SVP). Since 1999, the SVP, which in 2023 campaigned against mass migration and “woke madness,” has received between 22 percent and 29 percent of the vote in national elections.

However, due to Switzerland’s unique federal system, the party’s influence has been limited, though its persistence remains concerning.

Itziar Marañón of Campax, Switzerland’s largest citizen movement advocating for social and environmental issues, notes how right-wing populist parties across Europe are networking and learning from each other’s successes. But despite the increasing normalisation of these movements, Marañón notes that around 70 percent of voters across Europe still oppose the far-right.

Britain bucks the trend?

Closer to home, the UK presents an interesting case. When Britain voted to leave the EU in 2016, far-right politicians in Europe hailed it a victory for their own anti-immigration and anti-EU positions. But eight years later, and the UK has taken a leftward turn, with Labour’s landslide victory in July offering renewed hope for progressives. But beneath this surface lies a troubling undercurrent of far-right sentiment. Nigel Farage’s Reform Party secured 14 percent of the vote nationally, just behind the 16 percent won by Germany’s far-right AfD in the European Parliament elections. While the AfD is sending a sizable contingent of MEPs to Brussels, a bit like the Swiss voting model, the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system limited Reform’s parliamentary representation to just five seats, despite receiving over 4 million votes.

As Marta Lorimer, a politics lecturer at Cardiff University, observes: “If the UK had a different [polling] system, we would be seeing a level of fragmentation similar to other places in Europe. Some tendencies are just masked by the way the electoral system works.”

The UK may no longer be in Europe, but what is happening in the bloc presents a lesson for progressive politicians everywhere. As nationalist movements gain ground across Europe, it’s clear that progressive leaders must confront these challenges head-on. Keir Starmer’s recent rise in the UK offers hope for progressives, and he is certainly trying to walk an interesting line on immigration which stops well short of condemning anti-immigrant sentiments as racist but looks to manage numbers by liaising with European governments and improving the processing system. At the same time, he is trying to distinguish between ‘good immigrants’ (economic contributors) and ‘bad immigrants’ (mostly those entering illegally). It is all hugely problematic and risks offending humanitarians who see immigration in terms of a fundamental human need while failing to satisfy those who simply reject the whole idea of legitimate immigration.

The Spanish government is taking a much braver line in making it easier for people to settle in Spain on the grounds that they will contribute to the prosperity of the nation. No doubt other European leaders will be following the fortunes of Starmer and the Spanish prime minister Pedro Sanchez with interest. One thing is clear though: to maintain the democratic values that the EU was built on, leaders like Starmer must reject the normalisation of xenophobia and work towards a more inclusive and unified society.

Right-wing media watch – Loony Mail flits from Chagos to Falklands

“Hands off our Falklands,” read the Mail’s frontpage headline on October 5. The article claims that Argentina has vowed to make a fresh grab for the Falklands following “Labour’s surrender of the Chagos Islands.”

The piece followed a similarly dramatic frontpage headline the previous day. “Starmer’s Surrender,” criticised the PM’s decision to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, a country the article pointedly notes is an ally of China. The Mail provocatively suggested this move could have global security implications.

The paper further ramped up its criticism by featuring an “exclusive” interview with Nigel Farage, who accused Starmer of a “damaging capitulation” over Chagos. The article claimed the agreement was rushed through to avoid complications should Donald Trump win next month’s US presidential election, arguing that Trump’s allies see the deal as a strategic win for China.

The Mail speculated that this decision might signal future threats to the status of other British Overseas Territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar after Starmer apparently refused to guarantee their future sovereignty.

The right-wing hoo-hah seemed to have been stoked by a tweet from James Cleverly, who condemned the Labour government as “weak, weak, weak” for giving up the Chagos Islands. Though it soon came to light that it was Cleverly himself who had initiated talks on the issue during his tenure as foreign secretary, only for them to be paused by his successor, David Cameron.

Former security minister Tom Tugendhat, who, like Cleverly, was knocked out of the Tory leadership contest this week, weighed in, calling it “disgraceful” that negotiations had ever begun under a Conservative government, though he did not mention Cleverly by name. Further complicating matters, allies of Cleverly fired back by accusing former prime minister Liz Truss of leaving behind a “toxic legacy” that contributed to the islands’ loss, though Truss’s spokesperson was quick to point fingers at Boris Johnson, claiming it was his idea to open talks with Mauritius during COP26.

Amid the political blame game, Labour defended its decision by pointing out that the Conservatives had left behind a situation where the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia could have fallen under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), jeopardising British and American security interests.

Offering a rational perspective, Financial Times associate editor Stephen Bush observed that US President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken had welcomed the deal. Bush noted the absurdity of the infighting among Tory leadership candidates, particularly those who had supported Cleverly, who were scrambling to avoid any blame landing on their preferred candidate. He also remarked on the irony that it was the previous Conservative government that had initiated the talks.

As well as illustrating the continuing bickering and ridiculousness of the Tories, the story shows how the right-wing media, particularly the Daily Mail, will seize on any opportunity to launch attacks on Labour, no matter how irrational or void of the facts.

In response to the fears pushed on people by certain politicians and their media allies about a strategically important group of islands, Falklands governor Alison Blake said the legal and historical context of the two territories are “very different.”

The UK’s commitment to the South Atlantic territory’s sovereignty is “unwavering” and “remains undiminished,” she said in a statement.

By conflating unrelated issues like the Falklands and stoking fears of strategic vulnerability, the right-wing media is once again attempting to discredit the current government, weaponising complex geopolitical matters to undermine while glossing over the role Conservative administrations played in these decisions.

Woke-bashing of the week – Toyota bows to anti-woke pressure in latest corporate U-turn

Toyota has become the latest in a growing number of companies retreating from their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Despite the well-documented benefits of a strong DEI agenda, including improved recruitment, retention, and promotion of staff, an increasing number of businesses are abandoning such efforts to appease a small but vocal group of critics. Harley-Davidson and Black & Decker recently made similar moves

.

In a memo to more than 50,000 US employees, Toyota announced it would “refocus” its DEI programmes and would no longer sponsor cultural events, such as LGBTQ+ Pride.

“We will no longer sponsor cultural events such as festivals and parades that are not related to Stem [science, technology, engineering and maths] education and workforce readiness,” the memo read.

Bloomberg reports that the carmaker has also said it will no longer participate in table rankings by LGBTQ advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign and other corporate culture surveys.

This reversal followed a campaign led by Robby Starbuck, a former Hollywood video director turned conservative activist. Starbuck has spearheaded online campaigns against major US brands’ DEI programmes and corporate advocacy on issues like climate change and LGBTQ rights.

He wrote on X: The firm was “one of the most-trusted brands in America but [has] gone totally woke…. I don’t think the values at corporate reflect the values many Toyota/Lexus owners have (with the exception of maybe Prius owners who probably like the woke stuff).”

Following Toyota’s announcement, Starbuck declared victory, stating: “We’re winning and one by one we will bring sanity back to corporate America.”

Toyota’s headquarters in the conservative state of Texas perhaps partly explains the pressures the company faces in navigating America’s increasingly polarised cultural war landscape.

While the anti-woke agenda gains ground in parts of corporate America, it seems far from universally embraced, particularly outside the US. The UK, fortunately, has yet to see companies and sectors buckle to similar demands from conservative activists. Just last week former Tory MP Jonathan Gullis claimed that “woke” teachers were preventing him from re-entering the teaching profession, a claim met with mockery by many, including theTrades Union Congress (TUC), which posted on X: “The trade union movement will always stand up for workers facing unfair discrimination. This is not one of those times.”

After all, being “anti-woke” and teaching aren’t really compatible, as teaching demands an open mind which is never very evident among the cultural warriors. And of course, teachers have to address diversity every day of their professional lives in order to meet the needs of the children they teach.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch