It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, July 08, 2022
Disneyland's social media accounts were hacked with racist, offensive posts after a 'super hacker' took 'revenge' on the park
Erin Snodgrass Thu, July 7, 2022 Visitors pose for a selfie at the Disneyland Resort on April 30, 2021 in Anaheim, California
Christian Thompson/Disneyland Resort via Getty Images
A hacker "compromised" Disneyland's social media accounts early Thursday morning.
The culprit posted on the resort's Instagram page using obscene language and a racial slur.
A spokesperson for the company told media outlets that they worked quickly to remove the content.
Disneyland Resort's Instagram account was hacked early Thursday morning with racist and homophobic posts after a self-identified "super-hacker" said he was taking revenge on the theme park.
The culprit made four posts on Disneyland's Instagram account before 5 a.m. PT, according to The Disney Blog, which captured photos of the profanity-laced posts. The hacker identified themself as David DO, and posted two selfies as well as memes. In the caption of one photo, he said he was tired of "all these Disney employees mocking me," using both a racial slur and expletive.
In subsequent posts, the hacker also claimed to have invented the COVID-19 virus and threatened to release a new "COVID-20" virus.
The posts have since been removed.
A spokesperson for Disneyland confirmed to Insider that its Instagram and Facebook accounts were "compromised" on Thursday morning.
"We worked quickly to remove the reprehensible content, secure our accounts, and our security teams are conducting an investigation," the representative said.
The Anaheim, California-based resort boasts 8.4 million followers on Instagram and typically posts content featuring the park's parades, rides, and events.
The MCU’s Biggest ‘Ms. Marvel’ Tweak Undoes a Powerful Story on Race
Joshua N. Miller
Wed, July 6, 2022
Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty/Disney
When Marvel Studios made its proper entrance into the film business with 2008’s Iron Man, it seemed committed to staying true to Marvel characters’ origins—at least initially. After he’s wounded by shrapnel from his own missile, Tony Stark sets to work as Iron Man to keep his weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Thor Odinson learned humility when he was stripped of his powers and exiled to Earth. Steve Rogers then swung onto the scene as Captain America to take down Nazis in a similar fashion to his 1941 comic book debut.
It wasn’t until 2014’s Guardians of the Galaxy that the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) deviated radically from the comic books. Despite appearing in a few major comic events, the Guardians didn’t hold much cachet with general audiences—making them the perfect test case for Marvel Studios (and its new owner, Disney) to gauge just how much their audiences cared about sticking to the source material. Rather than a competent group of heroes that united to proactively deal with major threats, the MCU’s Guardians are a ragtag group of outlaws, whose initial incentive to collaborate was a common genocidal enemy.
When the movie came out, my fellow middle schoolers—who’d never heard of the team—questioned what kind of superheroes would recruit a talking raccoon and a walking tree. But sure enough, Guardians won over viewers by successfully uniting the team in their first outing without spending three years fleshing them out individually. Since then, Marvel has taken more liberties with its storytelling, to varying degrees of success—such as with 2017’s acclaimed Thor: Ragnarok and 2021’s panned Eternals. Based on this more liberal approach to their adaptations, it appears that Marvel’s learned that people don’t really care if their content sticks to the source material–until they do.
The latest entry in the MCU to differ from the comics is Disney+’s Ms. Marvel, which gives its Pakistani American protagonist Kamala Khan a new set of superpowers. Instead of gaining shape-shifting abilities through exposure to a DNA-altering vapor called the Terrigen Mists, MCU Kamala can manipulate light to create objects, like weapons and platforms by wearing a bangle that’s been passed down in her family.
In the comics, Kamala has faced a multitude of threats with her polymorphic abilities, ranging from killer robots in her hometown of Jersey City, New Jersey, to the time-traveler Kang the Conqueror. And she’s become hugely popular with real-life fans while doing it: numerous volumes of her solo series landed on the New York Times bestseller list within their first year on the market, and Kamala quickly achieved one of Marvel’s highest honors: becoming an Avenger. That level of recognition begets another big one, this time off the page and on the screen. In May 2018, Disney announced that Ms. Marvel would become a Disney+ show, which finally premiered earlier this month.
With Kamala’s level of popularity and publicity, it only makes sense that fans were watching closely to see how her story would translate onto TV. Which is why it’s no surprise that their eyebrows rose when Kamala’s MCU entrance came with a new backstory, in which her powers derive from a bangle that was passed down in her family.
Fans on social media have speculated as to what inspired the power change. One theory that’s become particularly popular is that the MCU didn’t want Kamala and the Fantastic Four’s Reed Richards to have similar powers ahead of the upcoming Fantastic Four movie. (This idea was recently dispelled by Kamala’s co-creator Sana Amanat in an interview with The Direct.)
But Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige maintains that the MCU isn’t “an exact translation of the comics,” as he said in a recent interview. He also explained in the same interview that the true nature of Kamala’s powers would be developed further in 2023’s Captain Marvelsequel, The Marvels. How her powers will develop until then remains to be seen. But no matter what happens, this initial change is a major one: it erases a major element of her origin story in a way that demonstrates their reluctance to confront real issues.
In both the Ms. Marvel show and comics, Kamala is experiencing an identity crisis. Torn between the cultures of her traditional Pakistani family and her more free-wheeling American peers, she takes comfort in her idolization of superheroes to detach from her day-to-day life. Her favorite hero is Carol Danvers (Captain Marvel), who once saved Kamala from the comic’s version of Yon-Ragg and helped save the world in Avengers: Endgame. Kamala looks up to Carol as a role model; she’s a strong, independent woman who charts her own path, just as Kamala wishes to become. But while the show frames Kamala’s idolization for Carol as fannish—the same way young girls might’ve idolized Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel after watching their respective films—the comic emphasizes that a substantial part of Kamala’s idolization of Carol extends from the fact that Carol is white.
Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan) in the comic books.
Marvel Comics
In a scene from the comics, Kamala sees Carol in a vision as she is transforming into her super-powered self. She uses the opportunity to talk to her favorite hero, voicing her frustration with who she is and who she wants to be. Kamala wishes she were “beautiful, awesome, butt-kicking, and less complicated,” all traits that she directly equates with being Carol. Kamala immediately receives her wish, emerging from her transformation as the spitting image of Carol from her own Ms. Marvel days, sporting the Warbird costume with white skin and blonde hair.
Yet even as she gets exactly what she asks for, Kamala still doesn't feel as confident or beautiful as she imagined she would. Part of this is shown through the character of Zoe, a popular, blonde, white girl who bullies Kamala in bigoted ways throughout the second issue. Her insults are blatantly Islamophobic, ranging from implying that Kamala’s friend Nakia might’ve been forced to wear her hijab to running away from Kamala at a party, complaining that she smells like curry.
It’s after that party that Kamala acknowledges that her idolization of whiteness is only internalized racism. Although Kamala initially defends Zoe’s actions—in part because she also represents Carol’s carefree lifestyle— she can’t ignore how badly her bully actually makes her feel. Struggling to control her new powers as she tries to make it back home afterward, she runs into Zoe. Her powers react accordingly: as soon as she sees Zoe, Kamala assumes her Carol-like form, as she feels like she has to be a different person—a cooler person—around her bully. But she ultimately reverts to her true appearance and then shrinks down, admitting to herself that Zoe makes her “feel small.”
The scene makes it clear that Kamala’s idolization of whiteness (and the privilege it grants) is what motivates her at first. But that desire is also what frustrates her, even as she tries to mask the true nature of her frustration by blaming it on her family’s Muslim traditions. She doesn't really hold her culture in contempt; what she hates is that her peers are too ignorant to learn about it and too insensitive to respect it. That’s what leaves her ostracized from them, and that’s what leaves her wanting to be more like them—not less like herself.
So far, however, the show omits these crucial nuances. Zoe is still a bully but without the racism, throwing dodgeballs at Kamala’s face when she's distracted in gym class. And while Kamala still idolizes Carol, her participation in the Captain Marvel cosplay competition at AvengerCon doesn't compare to her assuming the form of a white woman because she can’t see herself as a superhero otherwise.
Kamala Khan (Iman Vellani) tests out her powers (alongside her friend Bruno, played by Matt Lintz) in the Ms. Marvel TV show.
Marvel Entertainment/Disney+
The problem isn’t that the MCU’s version of Kamala doesn’t appear to face racism or Islamophobia in the same explicit ways that she does in the comic books. For example, her family discusses their experience living under Partition—when the British Empire cut India into two different nations—and how colonialism deeply impacted the Khans for generations. But the trauma of Partition is the most prominent example the show gives of how white supremacy affects them and, in turn, Kamala. The family doesn't talk about, say, 9/11 and the increase of Islamophobia it engendered, which continues to exist in the country. Kamala isn't given many modern touchpoints to refer to in terms of the actual material impact of the white majority's oppression. It's something that affected her parents when they were her age; that is in the past, and her present is concerned with other issues.
By downplaying this backstory’s modern reverberations in Kamala’s life, the show becomes just the latest MCU entry to shy away from the social issues that otherwise affect her. Like Tom Holland’s Peter Parker before her—the one who rose out of his canonical poverty thanks to Tony Stark—the MCU’s Kamala has other enemies to face.
It’s hard not to feel cynical about the decision not to replicate these parts of Kamala’s story on-screen. Considering that Ms. Marvel is the only Marvel TV show to feature a female lead of color thus far (and the only one to be review-bombed after its release), this creative decision feels as though Disney avoided depicting this conflict in the show, as to not make white audiences uncomfortable.
Perhaps Ms. Marvel’s viewers—and its makers—would benefit from watching Amanat recount her experiences growing up in New Jersey as a Pakistani-American. They’d easily see just how strongly the comic book version of Kamala’s struggles are lifted directly from her own: from the temptations of BLTs to the ostracization she faced after 9/11, Kamala is her reflection. Not only was the comic books’ Kamala meant to offer readers a hero who shared their struggles to find themselves, but she also was to do it with a sense of pride in her heritage. If Kamala’s origin offers any lesson to readers, it’s that sometimes it takes confronting your issues directly to change for the better. The MCU ultimately facilitates the existence of white supremacy and the other social issues it refuses to address by pretending that they’re no longer as relevant to the character as they were in the comics.
Exclusive-How an Indian cement maker bought Russian coal using yuan
Sudarshan Varadhan, Nupur Anand and Aftab Ahmed Thu, July 7, 2022
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - An Indian cement maker's recent purchase of Russian coal using yuan involved India's biggest private lender, HDFC Bank, according to an invoice seen by Reuters and a source, as more details emerge of the kind of trade that could blunt Western sanctions against Moscow.
There is no suggestion that the purchase, the particulars of which have not previously been reported, in any way breaches sanctions imposed on Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine.
But the document shows one way in which Russia could continue to sell commodities abroad without settling in U.S. dollars despite restrictions aimed at freezing it out of financial markets.
According to the invoice dated June 5 and a source familiar with the matter, HDFC Bank backed cement maker Ultratech's purchase of Russian coal from producer and trader SUEK for 172.7 million yuan ($25.74 million).
The letter of credit for the deal was issued by HDFC Bank's Mumbai suburban branch of Andheri East, according to the invoice. The dollar is the currency of choice for global trade in raw materials, but some traders say the yuan could be increasingly used to settle payments for supplies from Russia. In the invoice, SUEK requests Ultratech remit the 172.7 million yuan to SUEK's account at the Shanghai branch of China Everbright Bank. SUEK lists the Hong Kong branch of international lender HSBC as the correspondent bank. A correspondent bank acts as a middleman in the transfer of money from one bank to another. Reuters could not determine if a payment had been received by China Everbright or if HSBC or any other bank was involved in a transfer of funds. HDFC Bank and HSBC declined to comment. Ultratech, SUEK and China Everbright Bank did not respond to requests for comment. It was not clear from the invoice which currencies were used to effect the yuan payment. The amount listed was quoted in Chinese yuan and Reuters reported last week that Ultratech imported 157,000 tonnes of coal from Switzerland-registered SUEK and agreed to settle the final payment in that currency. YUAN TRADES STILL RARE
For India, such payment methods could become more common as it seeks to maintain trade ties with Russia for commodities including oil and coal without the risk of contravening Western sanctions.
India has deep political and security ties with Russia and has refrained from condemning the Ukraine war, which Russia says is a "special military operation".
India's energy imports from Russia have soared recently as traders, unable to sell into many Western markets, have offered steep discounts.
New Delhi defends its purchases of Russian goods, saying they are legal and that a sudden halt would inflate prices further and hurt consumers.
Greater use of the yuan to settle payments could help insulate Moscow from punishment and bolster Beijing's push to further internationalise the yuan and chip away at the dominance of the U.S. dollar in global trade.
It is, however, still rare for an Indian firm to agree to settle a trade with a non-Chinese company in yuan. In the absence of sanctions, overseas payments to Russian commodity and energy companies would typically be made in dollars via SWIFT to Russian accounts.
For Indian trade settlements using the yuan, lenders would potentially send dollars to foreign banks with sufficient yuan reserves, or Chinese banks they have tie-ups with, in exchange for yuan to settle the trade.
The invoice mentioned the SWIFT transaction IDs of both HSBC's Hong Kong branch and China Everbright's Shanghai branch. Reuters could not confirm whether any payment was made using the SWIFT platform.
SWIFT is a secure messaging system that facilitates rapid cross-border payments, making international trade flow smoothly. Several Russian banks have been cut off from the system in recent months.
"As a matter of policy, SWIFT does not comment on flows between institutions," a spokesman said.
India's bilateral trade with China, for which companies largely pay in dollars, has flourished even after a deadly military border clash between the two in 2020 that ratcheted up tensions that have still not subsided.
New Delhi has increased scrutiny on Chinese investments and imports, and banned some mobile apps over security concerns.
The Indian government and the central bank were aware of potential payments for Russian cargo in Chinese yuan, sources told Reuters last week. The government and central bank did not comment for this article.
($1 = 6.7096 Chinese yuan renminbi)
(Editing by Mike Collett-White and Carmel Crimmins)
Same-Sex Marriage Ban Continues in Japan
A ruling by the Osaka district court reflects the same outdated rhetoric as the conservative government.
Same-sex couples will continue to remain legally discriminated against in Japan, as the Osaka district court declared that the country’s ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional. The ruling, made on June 20, noted that Japan’s constitution defines marriage as between “both sexes.”
This was a demoralizing result for many LGBTQ rights advocates and same-sex couples in Japan. The Osaka ruling follows the Sapporo district’s unprecedented court ruling in 2021 that declared the failure to recognize same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Shamefully, Japan remains the only member of the G-7, a grouping of the world’s wealthiest liberal democracies, where same-sex marriage is yet to be recognized by national law. That remains true, even though an opinion poll conducted last year shows that approximately 65 of the Japanese public support marriage equality.
Such an injustice to the LGBTQ community is arguably due more to the thinking of the conservative government than to social views.
The ban on same-sex marriage is a reflection of the tendency in Japanese politics to steadfastly champions laws and policies that uphold anachronistic values. To conservative politicians, the nuclear, heteronormative, and reproductive family model is considered to be the foundation of Japan’s social order, stability, and economic success. While this family model is no longer feasible in the post-industrial economy, it is still thought to engender prosperity, as it did during the period from post-World War II until the early 1990s, which is dubbed the Japanese economic miracle. While some LDP politicians such as Noda Seiko and Kono Taro are advocating for greater social diversity and inclusivity, the majority remain intractable in their adherence to the outdated belief that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
Prejudicial and homophobic comments, thus, are frequently used to rail against increasingly loud calls to legalize same-sex marriage and secure other basic rights — despite the public backlash that ensues from such bigotry. For instance, Okochi Shigeta, a former LDP member, notoriously stated, “What would you do if homosexuals are to come together in Takarazuka and turn the city into a center of HIV infections?” on his official website in an effort to advocate against same-sex marriage in 2015.
More recently, Sugita Mio, a current member of the ruling party, expressed opposition to using taxpayers’ money to foster inclusivity for LGBTQ individuals in a Japanese publication. She claimed her stance is based on a belief that LGBTQ individuals do not reproduce and thus are not productive citizens. Sugita’s further assertion that sexual preference is something that individuals could grow out of to become futsu or “normal” is another clear sign that these lawmakers are unwilling to let go of the past.
Another archaic law based on similar principles is the koseki, or the family registration system, stipulated in Article 750 of the Japanese Civil Code. It was enacted in 1896 during the Meiji period with the purpose to protect and preserve the traditional family model. It is this law that famously forbids married couples from keeping different surnames. Like the same-sex marriage ban, repeated challenges to the ban on married couples having different names have been knocked down by courts, and the ruling LDP has showed little appetite to make a legal change, despite growing public discontent.
It appears that most of the LDP lawmakers adhere to the universally fading value that the husband must serve as the family breadwinner while the wife serves her family by bearing children and engaging in domestic work. With this outdated conception of the family, it is thus not surprising that same-sex couples are denied their right to marry, especially as some lawmakers believe the alarming birthrate decline in Japan is somehow induced by the LGBTQ community.
Considering that married couples in Japan are required by law to share a surname – which, in practice, nearly always means the woman changes her name – we should not expect that LDP politicians would accept a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage anytime soon, much less proactively put forward such a bill. Indeed, perhaps to skirt away from ruffling the feathers of either the public or his party members – two groups increasingly at odds over the issue – Prime Minister Kishida Fumio has maintained his seemingly neutral position regarding same-sex marriage, stating that the matter must be carefully considered. Given that he has yet to lay out a single plan for an actual review, however, it seems he merely wants to avoid taking action on the issue. Japan’s sclerotic government is allergic to change.
The current environment in Japan, which legally discriminates against sexual minorities, will continue to have negative impacts, and not just on the marginalized LGBTQ community. Japan’s lack of progress on LGBTQ rights forbodes negative economic prospects for the nation, as more and more foreign businesses are prioritizing inclusivity. If Japan wants to keep its status as a leading nation among liberal democracies – where LGBTQ inclusivity is of key importance – the government must eventually legalize same-sex marriage. The conservative government continuing to stall comes at the cost of narrowing the country’s economic potential and depriving millions of people of their basic human rights.
It is time for the government to let go of the past and look to the future.
Palestinian president, Israeli defence minister meet before Biden visit
Fri, July 8, 2022
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Defence Minister Benny Gantz held a rare meeting in the occupied West Bank in an effort to calm tensions and coordinate on security days before U.S. President Joe Biden's first visit to the region.
Gantz said on Twitter that Thursday's meeting in Ramallah "was conducted in positive terms" and that the two discussed "civilian and security challenges" in the region.
"We agreed to maintain close security coordination and to avoid actions that may cause instability," Gantz said.
Abbas "stressed the importance of creating a political horizon, respecting signed agreements and stopping actions and measures that lead to the deterioration of the situation," Hussein al-Sheikh, a senior Palestinian official, said in a tweet.
Abbas also stressed the importance of having a "calm atmosphere before President Biden's visit, which we welcome".
It was the third known meeting between Abbas and Gantz since August last year, and the first since Yair Lapid took over as caretaker prime minister in Israel last week ahead of elections on Nov. 1.
Simmering tensions between Israel and the Palestinians grew more intense following the May 11 killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh during an Israeli army raid in the West Bank city of Jenin.
Palestinians say Abu Akleh was shot deliberately by an Israeli soldier. Israel denies this. The U.S. State Department said on Monday that Abu Akleh was likely killed by gunfire from Israeli positions but it was probably unintentional.
The Palestinian Authority exercises limited self-rule in parts of the West Bank. U.S.-brokered talks aimed at establishing a Palestinian state in Israeli-occupied territory collapsed in 2014 and show no sign of revival.
(Additional reporting by Ali Sawafta in Ramallah; Writing by Henriette Chacar; Editing by Mark Heinrich)
Swiss court clears Blatter, Platini of fraud in FIFA trial
Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court acquits ex-world and European football chiefs over a suspected fraudulent payment.
Blatter gives statements at the last day of his trial [Alessandro Crinari/EPA]
Published On 8 Jul 2022
Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini, once the chiefs of world and European football, have been acquitted over a suspected fraudulent payment that shook the sport and torpedoed their time at the top.
Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court in the southern city of Bellinzona on Friday rejected the prosecution’s request for a suspended prison sentence of a year and eight months, following a mammoth investigation that began in 2015 and lasted six years.
Former FIFA president Blatter, 86, and Platini, 67, were tried over a two million Swiss franc ($2.05m) payment in 2011 to Platini, who was then in charge of European football’s governing body UEFA.
The former French football great “submitted to FIFA in 2011 an allegedly fictitious invoice for a (alleged) debt still existing for his activity as an adviser for FIFA in the years 1998 to 2002”, according to the court.
Blatter insisted before the court that the pair had struck an oral “gentlemen’s agreement”, with some of Platini’s remuneration to be paid at a later date when FIFA’s fragile finances would allow it.
Both were accused of fraud and forgery of a document. Blatter was accused of misappropriation and criminal mismanagement, while Platini was accused of participating in those offences.
Platini surrounded by journalists as he arrives at Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court [Fabrice Coffrini/AFP]
Blatter and Platini maintained their innocence throughout their trial, which ran from June 8 to 22.
The indictment was filed by the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland.
Both FIFA and UEFA are headquartered in Switzerland, in Zurich and Nyon respectively. Banned from the sport
Platini and Blatter were banned from the sport at the very moment when the former seemed ideally placed to succeed Blatter at the helm of world football’s governing body.
The two allies became rivals as Platini grew impatient to take over, while Blatter’s tenure was brought to a swift end by a separate 2015 FIFA corruption scandal investigated by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Joseph “Sepp” Blatter joined FIFA in 1975, became its general secretary in 1981 and the president of world football’s governing body in 1998.
He was forced to stand down in 2015 and was banned by FIFA for eight years, later reduced to six, over ethics breaches for authorising the payment to Platini, allegedly made in his own interests rather than FIFA’s.
Platini is regarded among world football’s greatest ever players. He won the Ballon d’Or, considered the most prestigious individual award, three times – in 1983, 1984 and 1985.
Platini was UEFA’s president from January 2007 to December 2015. He appealed against his initial eight-year suspension at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which reduced it to four years.
PANAFRICANISM
Ndabaningi Sithole: Zimbabwe’s forgotten intellectual and leader
Despite being almost erased from history, Sithole’s ideas are still relevant today.
Ndabaningi Sithole, July 1977. Central Press/Getty Images
Ndabaningi Sithole was one of the founding fathers of the modern state of Zimbabwe in southern Africa. In August 1963, he became the first president of the Zimbabwe African National Union (Zanu), the militant liberation organisation that fought against white minority rule that he led for a decade before being deposed in a palace coup engineered by his rival Robert Mugabe. Mugabe went on to become the post-independence leader of Zimbabwe.
Sithole was the most prolific black writer in colonial Rhodesia from the 1950s until the country gained independence as Zimbabwe in 1980. In that period he published nine books (one serialised in African Parade magazine). He also left an incredible archive of the liberation struggle that was generated in real time. Surprisingly, most of Zimbabwe’s liberation figures did not leave behind a lot of their own writings. Sithole is unique in that regard.
His most important book, African Nationalism, which has recently been republished, is part autobiography and part polemics that provides a history of the liberation movement in Zimbabwe at its nascent stages. It was first published in 1959 and then in 1968.
.
Third edition of African Nationalism. Ndabaningi Sithole Foundation
A third edition of African Nationalism is timely. It was released by his family through the Ndabaningi Sithole Foundation which was launched last year to “honour and perpetuate his legacy as an advocate for civil rights and pan African democracy” through republishing his books and hosting events.
It’s timely because there is a reconfiguration of the politics of Zimbabwe. Mugabe, who was a dominant force for almost four decades, has since died. There is currently a vigorous contestation for power and legitimacy going on in the country. Figures like Sithole who have been sidelined in Zimbabwe’s history offer us an opportunity to reconsider suppressed views and perspectives.
The philosopher-politician
More than six decades after the publication of African Nationalism, it remains a critical text to think about topical subjects such as self determination, political representation and decolonisation. Sithole’s foray into active politics was primarily through his writings and thus his bona fide credentials as a leading intellectual were embraced. His book’s wide critical acclaim and translation into half a dozen European languages earned him respect among his peers.
Sithole composed the book in the US where he was a student of theology. He explained his impetus in his introduction:
I was confronted by what some of my American friends said about African nationalism, which at the time was just beginning to be felt throughout the length and breadth of the continent of Africa, and which was also beginning to make fairly sensational international headlines. The big question which everyone was asking: Is Africa ready for sovereign independence? The majority greatly doubted that Africa was ready. Some regarded the rise of African nationalism as a bad omen for the whitemen in Africa.
As historian David Maxwell writes, nationalism – supporting the interests of the nation-state – has been a powerful force in Zimbabwean history as a mobilising ideology. It continues to play a key part in the arena in which political ideas and participation are imagined.
Zimbabwean nationalism, a version of which historian Terence Ranger called “patriotic history” remains central to debates about who belongs, and who has the right to speak, to vote and to own land.
The barrel of a pen
Sithole’s tenure as leader of Zanu was mostly from prison, between 1964 and 1974. It was a treacherous time. Most of the black political leaders had been rounded up, detained, killed or forced into exile. Besides directing Zanu’s insurgent activities from his prison cell, Sithole also filled up time writing books: novels, poetry, and political tracts. He considered writing as a revolutionary tool.
From left to right, Chief Jeremiah Chirau, Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole,
Prime Minister Ian Smith and Bishop Abel Muzorewa in New York, 1978. Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
His manuscripts, smuggled from prison with the help of guards and sympathisers, were mostly published abroad to avoid censorship. Two of these included The Polygamist and Obed Mutezo – the story of an “African Nationalist (Christian) Martyr”. Sithole was also a leading contributor to the Zimbabwe News, a newsletter that was published by Zanu to convey its revolutionary messages.
As if he knew history was not going to be kind to him, Sithole spent considerable time writing his ideas, but also about people he met as a leader. He partly coordinated the liberation struggle through the barrel of the pen. Sithole writes himself into history. He is not just a chronicler of the liberation struggle, as it is happening in real time, but also acts as an archivist for the future. The teacher and preacher
Sithole was a primary school teacher at home before studying theology in the US between 1955 and 1958. He had been mentored by the revered missionaries Garfield and Grace Todd at Dadaya Mission. This relationship was formative to his politics and civic interests. Despite later political disagreements, they maintained a cautious allyship and respect.
While in the US, Sithole published AmaNdebele kaMzilikazi in 1956, the first published novel in Ndebele in Zimbabwe. It was released by Longmans, Green & Co. in Cape Town before being republished in 1957 as Umvukela wamaNdebele by the newly established Rhodesia Literature Bureau. The book is inspired by the events of the Ndebele uprisings of 1896.
Sithole was the product of an unusual progeny – a father from the Ndau clan and a mother from the Ndebele clan. As such, he was not easily contained by the Shona-Ndebele binary that has informed much of Zimbabwe’s modern politics. Growing up in rural Matebeleland, he was raised under Ndebele tradition and culture. It is not surprising that his first published book was inspired by Ndebele traditions.
A complicated legacy
To look at Sithole’s life and career in retrospect is to wade through so much hubris, of his own making and of others. His fall from grace was spectacular. He has been for the modern Zanu-PF a persona non grata. But a figure like Sithole cannot be easily expunged from history, which he actively contributed to as a leading actor and as a writer.
At a time when a young generation of Africans are calling for decolonisation, Sithole’s ideas resonate even further. In the preface to the new edition of African Nationalism, former Kenyan prime minister, Raila Odinga posits:
Reading African Nationalism evokes mixed feelings of sadness and joy. It is sad to imagine that a whole book had to be written to try and explain to fellow humans why Africans were agitating for and deserved self rule.
It is always important to look back to the past, in order to navigate the present and the future. His ideas aside, Sithole is also a reminder of the fickleness of politics and history.
Voices: Why do we ask this one terrible question every time a woman is killed?
Sophie Gallagher Thu, July 7, 2022
For weeks after the murder of primary schoolteacher Sabina Nessa in September, one of the top suggested questions on Google was “what was Sabina Nessa wearing?”
If you did a quick search of the 28-year-old’s name, instead of being served information about her career, her love of make-up and bags, her fondness for her three pet cats, how she would pick fruit off the crabapple tree in her parents’ back garden or how her family would come to desperately mourn her during Eid, readers would be presented with that question.
Although the misguided entry now appears to have been removed – and is only partly the fault of the search engine given that it is dictated by what users are commonly looking for – it points perfectly to one of the biggest lies we tell ourselves about violence against women. Namely, that women are partially to blame for the tragic fates that befall them. That something Sabina did, or did not do, was (at least in part) the reason behind what happened to her.
As a society we tell ourselves this constantly: that women can do more, be safer, take greater precautions, wear different clothing, drink less alcohol, walk a better-lit route home and never be alone to avoid becoming victims of male violence. Instead of tackling gender-based violence where it starts, with men, we try to prepare women to avoid becoming victims.
This is wrong. Our whole approach needs to be flipped on its head. But it is not the only lie we tell ourselves about this social ill. We also believe falsehoods about the men who commit violence – namely that it is only monsters, those on the fringes of society, who do so. But, as educator and author of The Macho ParadoxJackson Katz said in his 2012 TEDx Talk, these men do not “crawl out of the swamp, come into town and do their nasty business and then retreat into the darkness”. In reality, perpetrators are much more normal than that.
In January 2022, Scottish MSP Karen Adam tweeted: “Paedophiles and predators are people. Not bogey men under the bed. Not mac-wearing flashers in the street, faceless and nameless. They are our family, friends and colleagues. They are not scary monsters.” But this reality jars with the narratives we have woven around violence: consider even the most basic of rape myths – that of stranger danger.
Contrary to what we might believe, the majority of sexual attacks on women are not perpetrated by random men lurking in the darkness, waiting to pounce, but by people known to the victims. Only 16 per cent of rapes are committed by strangers, according to the crime survey. The most likely perpetrators are partners or ex-partners (44 per cent). Sociologist Michael Flood says: “[Our] vision of what that violence looks like is very narrow. A vision of rape is a stranger leaping out of the bushes and physically assaulting a woman with a weapon or leaving her physically injured.”
In addition to this mistaken belief, we tell ourselves that violence is rare and unlikely to affect most women. But a survey by the UN found that more than 70 per cent of women in the UK had experienced sexual harassment in public. This number rose to 97 per cent among 18 to 24-year-olds. More than half of women had experienced catcalling, 40 per cent had been groped, a third had been followed and one in five had faced indecent exposure.
Young women are not exempt – a 2015 survey of 1,574 young girls by Girlguiding found that 81 per cent had experienced or witnessed sexism in the week before the survey was taken. This isn’t even the full picture – fewer than one in six victims (16 per cent) had actually reported their assault to the police, according to the latest crime survey for England and Wales.
Even when women do report it, we tell ourselves yet another untruth: that there is a significant proportion of women who create false accusations for their own gain. The bogeyman of the fabricated story lingers in spite of the evidence that demonstrates such cases are rare.
To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here
In 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) published a report looking into the phenomenon and showed that over a 17-month period there were a total of 5,651 prosecutions for rape and, in the same period, 35 prosecutions for false allegations of rape. This is 0.62 per cent. Even among that small number, the CPS concluded that “in some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one which he or she had reported”.
What is far more likely than false accusations, according to the stats, is that women won’t be believed when they are telling the truth. In 2014, a joint government-police monitoring report indicated a “culture of disbelief” as police forces wrote off up to a third of all rape allegations reported to them.
These lies all help to convey a false narrative around who is responsible for violence and what can be done about it, a narrative that alleviates men of the requirement to change. But the biggest lie of all? That extreme violence, like that dispensed against Sabina, or Sarah Everard, or Zara Aleena, is unconnected to other inequalities.
There can be phenomenal reluctance to connect sexism and sexual violence with women’s lower economic, social and cultural standing, but this sub-status is implicitly linked. When society sees women’s needs, their wants, their ambitions, their intelligence, their capability, their leadership as secondary to men, in a world in which women are dehumanised, it creates the conditions for men to use control if it further serves their needs.
Boris Johnson’s resignation as prime minister is not just a portentous political event. His time in office – and the nature of his departure – throw up vital questions about democratic values and institutions.
Blaming the failings of an entire political culture on the moral deficiencies of one leader might make us feel righteous, but most of us know that the rot goes rather deeper than one flamboyant character. The fall of Johnson could be taken as a historical juncture to be built upon – and not just in the UK.
Some have argued that the political debate preceding the Brexit referendum was a nadir; that public hopes and fears were cynically exploited by politicians who did not even believe the substance of their own messages. Johnson’s premiership fell because it seemed to recognise no distinction between what is true and what is politically expedient. Once that distinction ceases to matter, democratic discourse becomes unsustainable and political communication becomes a matter of permanent decoding.
Integrity depends upon binding structures, such as codes of conduct and ethics committees. It also relies on a cultural commitment by politicians and citizens to call out intentional deceit, corrupt practices and hateful speech. The fall of Johnson is a good moment for explicit reflection on how far any democracy is prepared to tolerate, and even reward, Machiavellian tendencies. Red-meat politics
The Johnson years highlight the important difference between a popular government and a government making meaningful difference to its people. Too often, attention grabbing “red-meat” solutions have been proffered in response to intractable challenges. Flying refugees to Rwanda or declaring Brexit “done” may have made for ephemerally forceful headlines and opinion poll effects, but they are typically merely symbolic and often dangerously counter-productive.
Governing takes time and thought. And it calls for honest appraisal, followed by serious efforts to fix what does not work well. This is quite different from government by propaganda whereby every manifest failure is described as a success and critics are sidelined or mocked.
Parliaments, which are supposed to hold governments to account on behalf of the public, need to assert their power. The British parliament may have acted to remove a prime minister who looked like an electoral liability but a more important role for parliament to play is to challenge policy proposals that are clearly not thought through or are offered as mere crowd-appeasing gestures.
The Johnson government was far from unique in having promoted a number of simplistic policies. It was, however, perhaps unprecedented in its willingness to flirt with the policy rhetoric of populism.
Better discourse surely involves paying attention to the ways in which our current media ecology too often rewards the loudest, most contentious demagogues and enables politicians who know how to capitalise on the worst practices of the journalistic trade. Oxbridge politics in a changing world
A final, important matter, is how to bring a much wider range of voices and experiences into democratic politics. Recent events in the UK have included a damaging lobbying affair and multiple revelations of political figures breaking their own lockdown laws during the pandemic. Further, Johnson’s end came in the immediate wake of accusations of serious sexual misconduct against a senior figure in his government.
These might all have attracted a degree of weary popular interest in the Westminster soap opera. But the overall effect has surely been further erosion of the electorate’s already low trust in politics, fuelling renewed motives for disengagement.
The end of any leader’s career is an opportunity to reflect on what expectations we have of our democratic representatives. During Johnson’s tenure, too much time has been spent discussing what the British public is willing to put up with. Johnson will soon be gone from Downing Street. The question instead should be what do the people want next – and how can they make it happen? Stephen Coleman, Professor of Political Communication, University of Leeds
Boris Johnson breaks from his party in bitter resignation speech – what he said and what he really meant
THE CONVERSATION Published: July 8, 2022
Having apparently delayed the inevitable for as long as he could, Boris Johnson finally took to a podium outside 10 Downing Street on July 7 to say he would be stepping down as leader of the Conservative Party. This ultimately means his time as prime minister is over too.
This followed a torrid few days during which many of his MPs turned on him by either calling on him to resign or resigning themselves from government jobs. Johnson said he would stay in post as prime minister until the governing Conservatives had elected a replacement.
Resignation, defeat and concession speeches in politics are difficult to make. Johnson, like so many departing leaders before him, wanted to shore up his reputation while also taking aim at his enemies and those who brought him down. This is always a tricky line to walk. Too much attack and you are the sore loser, too much self-praise and you are deluded.
Did he manage to walk the line? Not really. The speech was followed by objections over its tone and led to calls for him to depart straight away rather than staying on until his successor is appointed.
Join thousands of Canadians who subscribe to free evidence-based news.Get newsletter
Here are a few things we learned from Boris Johnson’s resignation speech.
1. He still doesn’t believe he should go
The build-up to Johnson’s eventual resignation involved a stand-off with his own ministers and a protracted refusal to quit. Even though Johnson has now agreed to leave, it was abundantly clear from his speech that this is a man who struggles to accept what has happened to him.
An awkward moment in parliament on Johnson’s last day. Alamy
His choice of words was telling. Johnson revealed that he had argued to his cabinet that a change of government at this current moment would be “eccentric” given the country’s needs. He accused his own parliamentary party of acting under a “herd instinct” and referred to a “Darwinian” method of leadership selection. He, it seems, was the victim of his party’s senseless antics.
“Them’s the breaks” he concluded – a phrase used when something happens outside your control.
2. He’s lost what interest he had in his party
Johnson has pressured his ministers into agreeing to let him stay on as a caretaker prime minister until a new leader is in place. But the tone of his speech has already triggered their regret at making such a concession. Conservative Party grandees have weighed in, with former prime minister John Major arguing that months with Johnson as PM would be “unwise”.
Johnson’s resignation speech.
It is usual in these type of speeches to pledge support for a successor. Johnson’s version of this tradition was lukewarm at best:
0ur brilliant and Darwinian system will produce another leader equally committed to taking this country forward through tough times … And to that new leader, whoever he or she may be, I say: I will give you as much support as I can.
It is often said that he is not as rooted in the Conservative party as many of his fellow MPs – and this speech left it hard to imagine him staying on as a backbencher after he finally leaves Downing Street. Before becoming prime minister he had seen no problem in rocking the boat. Those Conservatives aching for a period of calm will be worried about letting Johnson continue in Downing street when he no longer has a stake in future elections.
3. He remembers the highs and has already forgotten the lows
The broader style of Johnson’s speech was also unusual. The rhetorical devices he deployed are common in politics, but perhaps less so in resignation statements specifically. Groupings of three ideas are popular in political speeches, for example. Johnson said he “felt it was my job, my duty, my obligation” to stay on in the role of prime minister.
Lists using very active language are also popular and Johnson opted for this style to remind us of his achievements:
getting Brexit done and settling our relations with the continent after half a century, reclaiming the power for this country to make its own laws in parliament, getting us all through the pandemic, delivering the fastest vaccine rollout in Europe … leading the west in standing up to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine.
These devices are standard in campaign-type speaking, or in speeches at party conferences or conventions. But the boosterism sounded odd in a speech effectively marking a huge (personal) defeat. Anyone without background knowledge who tuned in for this speech could have been forgiven for wondering why on earth he was resigning. 4. He’s still not interested in apologising
Perhaps the most significant words were those missing from Johnson’s speech – “thanks” and “sorry”.
It’s normal in a speech like this to thank your colleagues, even if things ended badly. There were thanks for the public, Johnson’s family and the civil service but none for any ministers or MPs. Where, I wondered, was the thanks for those ministerial colleagues who had been defending him in parliament and in the media for several months? Many had of course ended up advising him to quit but it is quite a snub to not rate a mention.
It is fair to say that the speech elicited an immediate backlash. Critics pointed out that there was no sense of taking responsibility and no sense of apology. This is not part of Johnson’s DNA and while using apologetic language in the House of Commons has sometimes been necessary in recent times, he probably felt he had little to gain by saying sorry at this final moment.
Author
Paula Keaveney Senior Lecturer in Politics, Edge Hill University Disclosure statement Paula Keaveney is a member of the Liberal Democrats
MACEDONIA Shootings at latest protest in Skopje as unrest intensifies
Violence and incidents marked the fifth day of protests in Skopje.
By Valentina Dimitrievska in Skopje July 7, 2022
The protests in North Macedonia’s capital Skopje continued for the fifth consecutive day on July 6 against the compromise solution for lifting the Bulgarian veto on the country’s EU accession talks.
Violence and incidents marked the fifth day of protests, organised by the opposition conservative VMRO-DPMNE party. Two police officers were injured and there were reports of shootings. Leader of VMRO-DPMNE, Hristijan Mickoski, claimed that he was a target of gunfire during the protest.
People in North Macedonia are dissatisfied with the French proposal, which is intended to unblock the stalled EU accession process, claiming that it is harmful for the Macedonian national interests.
While protesters were passing by the Skender Bey square, a group of ethnic Albanians started to provoke them and the two groups threw stones and other objects at each other. The incident lasted for 10 minutes, until special police units came to prevent a major incident.
“This is the man who was supposed to kill me tonight. I demand that he be immediately detained by [Interior Ministry Oliver] Spasovski and the Ministry of the Interior!” Mickoski said on Facebook, posting a photo of several people, one of them holding a gun.
“Several shots were fired, which luckily did not end up in the crowd,” Mickoski said.
At 10 pm Mickoski hold an extraordinary news conference to say that he had information that he was supposed to be assassinated.
“I want to remind that such a scenario was announced by the government, the Foreign Minister Bujar Osmani, who announced that there will be inter-ethnic tensions if the proposal that foresees the assimilation and Bulgarisation of [North] Macedonia is not accepted,” opposition leader said.
The protest ended in front of the parliament.
In the meantime, the police said that they detained a person with initials E.J. (40) of Skopje who fired a gun in the air during the protests. He was not part of people who were protesting.
A day earlier, 47 police officers were injured, 11 of them seriously, while two officers with serious injuries were hospitalised. 11 protestors were detained, two of whom were minors.
Mickoski announced on July 6 that the protests will continue.
“We are continuing tomorrow at 7 pm in front of the government,” Mickoski said.
EU officials are urging North Macedonia to accept the proposal and start the long-awaited EU-accession talks, claiming that the Macedonian national identity and the language are protected with the French proposal.
