The fish stinks from the head...

As the United States prepares to celebrate Independence Day, we look at why July 4 is not a cause for celebration for all. For Native Americans, it may be a bitter reminder of colonialism, which brought fatal diseases, cultural hegemony and genocide. Neither did the new republic’s promise of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" extend to African Americans. The colonists who declared their freedom from England did not share their newly founded liberation with the millions of Africans they had captured and forced into slavery. We speak with historian Gerald Horne, who argues the so-called Revolutionary War was actually a conservative effort by American colonists to protect their system of slavery. He is the author of two new books: "The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America" and "Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow." Horne is professor of history and African American studies at the University of Houston.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in Chicago with our next guest. Juan González is in New York.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, next weekend, the United States celebrates the Fourth of July, the day the American colonies declared their independence from England in 1776. While many Americans will hang flags, participate in parades and watch fireworks, Independence Day is not a cause for celebration for all. For Native Americans, it is yet another bitter reminder of colonialism, which brought fatal diseases, cultural hegemony and full-out genocide. Neither did the new republic’s promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness extend to African Americans. As our next guest notes, the white colonists who declared their freedom from the crown did not share their newly founded liberation with the millions of Africans they had captured and forced into slavery.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Gerald Horne argues that the so-called Revolutionary War was actually a counterrevolution, in part, not a progressive step forward for humanity, but a conservative effort by American colonialists to protect their system of slavery.

For more, Professor Horne joins us here in our Chicago studio. He’s the author of two new books: The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America and another new book, just out, Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. Professor Horne teaches history and African American studies at the University of Houston.

Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. So, as we move into this Independence Day week, what should we understand about the founding of the United States?

GERALD HORNE: We should understand that July 4th, 1776, in many ways, represents a counterrevolution. That is to say that what helped to prompt July 4th, 1776, was the perception amongst European settlers on the North American mainland that London was moving rapidly towards abolition. This perception was prompted by Somerset’s case, a case decided in London in June 1772 which seemed to suggest that abolition, which not only was going to be ratified in London itself, was going to cross the Atlantic and basically sweep through the mainland, thereby jeopardizing numerous fortunes, not only based upon slavery, but the slave trade. That’s the short answer.

The longer answer would involve going back to another revolution—that is to say, the so-called Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, which, among other things, involved a step back from the monarch—for the monarch, the king, and a step forward for the rising merchant class. This led to a deregulation of the African slave trade. That is to say, the Royal African Company theretofore had been in control of the slave trade, but with the rising power of the merchant class, this slave trade was deregulated, leading to what I call free trade in Africans. That is to say, merchants then descended upon the African continent manacling and handcuffing every African in sight, with the energy of demented and crazed bees, dragging them across the Atlantic, particularly to the Caribbean and to the North American mainland. This was prompted by the fact that the profits for the slave trade were tremendous, sometimes up to 1,600 or 1,700 percent. And as you know, there are those even today who will sell their firstborn for such a profit. This, on the one hand, helped to boost the productive forces both in the Caribbean and on the mainland, but it led to numerous slave revolts, not least in the Caribbean, but also on the mainland, which helped to give the mainlanders second thoughts about London’s tentative steps towards abolition.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Gerald Horne, one of the things that struck me in your book is not only your main thesis, that this was in large part a counterrevolution, our—the United States’ war of independence, but you also link very closely the—what was going on in the Caribbean colonies of England, as well as in the United States, not only in terms of among the slaves in both areas, but also among the white population. And, in fact, you indicate that quite a few of those who ended up here in the United States fostering the American Revolution had actually been refugees from the battles between whites and slaves in the Caribbean. Could you expound on that?

GERALD HORNE: It’s well known that up until the middle part of the 18th century, London felt that the Caribbean colonies—Jamaica, Barbados, Antigua, in particular—were in some ways more valuable than the mainland colonies. The problem was that in the Caribbean colonies the Africans outnumbered the European settlers, sometimes at a rate of 20 to one, which facilitated slave revolts. There were major slave revolts in Antigua, for example, in 1709 and 1736. The Maroons—that is to say, the Africans who had escaped London’s jurisdiction in Jamaica—had challenged the crown quite sternly. This led, as your question suggests, to many European settlers in the Caribbean making the great trek to the mainland, being chased out of the Caribbean by enraged Africans. For example, I did research for this book in Newport, Rhode Island, and the main library there, to this very day, is named after Abraham Redwood, who fled Antigua after the 1736 slave revolt because many of his, quote, "Africans," unquote, were involved in the slave revolt. And he fled in fear and established the main library in Newport, to this very day, and helped to basically establish that city on the Atlantic coast. So, there is a close connection between what was transpiring in the Caribbean and what was taking place on the mainland. And historians need to recognize that even though these colonies were not necessarily a unitary project, there were close and intimate connections between and amongst them.

AMY GOODMAN: So, why this great disparity between how people in the United States talk about the creation myth of the United States, if you will—I’m not talking about indigenous people, Native American people—and this story that you have researched?

GERALD HORNE: Well, it is fair to say that the United States did provide a sanctuary for Europeans. Indeed, I think part of the, quote, "genius," unquote, of the U.S. project, if there was such a genius, was the fact that the founders in the United States basically called a formal truce, a formal ceasefire, with regard to the religious warfare that had been bedeviling Europe for many decades and centuries—that is to say, Protestant London, so-called, versus Catholic Madrid and Catholic France. What the settlers on the North American mainland did was call a formal truce with regard to religious conflict, but then they opened a new front with regard to race—that is to say, Europeans versus non-Europeans.

This, at once, broadened the base for the settler project. That is to say, they could draw upon those defined as white who had roots from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains, and indeed even to the Arab world, if you look at people like Ralph Nader and Marlo Thomas, for example, whose roots are in Lebanon but are considered to be, quote, "white," unquote. This obviously expanded the population base for the settler project. And because many rights were then accorded to these newly minted whites, it obviously helped to ensure that many of them would be beholden to the country that then emerged, the United States of America, whereas those of us who were not defined as white got the short end of the stick, if you like.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Gerald Horne, as a result of that, during the American Revolution, what was the perception or the attitude of the African slaves in the U.S. to that conflict? You also—you talk about, during the colonial times, many slaves preferred to flee to the Spanish colonies or the French colonies, rather than to stay in the American colonies of England.

GERALD HORNE: You are correct. The fact of the matter is, is that Spain had been arming Africans since the 1500s. And indeed, because Spain was arming Africans and then unleashing them on mainland colonies, particularly South Carolina, this put competitive pressure on London to act in a similar fashion. The problem there was, is that the mainland settlers had embarked on a project and a model of development that was inconsistent with arming Africans. Indeed, their project was involved in enslaving and manacling every African in sight. This deepens the schism between the colonies and the metropolis—that is to say, London—thereby helping to foment a revolt against British rule in 1776.

It’s well known that more Africans fought alongside of the Redcoats—fought alongside the Redcoats than fought with the settlers. And this is understandable, because if you think about it for more than a nanosecond, it makes little sense for slaves to fight alongside slave masters so that slave masters could then deepen the persecution of the enslaved and, indeed, as happened after 1776, bring more Africans to the mainland, bring more Africans to Cuba, bring more Africans to Brazil, for their profit.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to historian Gerald Horne. He’s author of two new books. We’re talking about The Counter-Revolution of 1776. The subtitle of that book is Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America. And his latest book, just out, is called Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. He’s professor of history and African American studies at University of Houston. When we come back, we’ll talk about that second book about Cuba. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "Slavery Days" by Burning Spear, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in Chicago. Juan González is in New York. Before we talk about the book on slavery, I want to turn to President Obama’s remarks at the White House’s Fourth of July celebration last year. This is how President Obama described what happened in 1776.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: On July 4th, 1776, a small band of patriots declared that we were a people created equal, free to think and worship and live as we please, that our destiny would not be determined for us, it would be determined by us. And it was bold, and it was brave. And it was unprecedented. It was unthinkable. At that time in human history, it was kings and princes and emperors who made decisions. But those patriots knew there was a better way of doing things, that freedom was possible, and that to achieve their freedom, they’d be willing to lay down their lives, their fortune and their honor. And so they fought a revolution. And few would have bet on their side. But for the first time of many times to come, America proved the doubters wrong. And now, 237 years later, this improbable experiment in democracy, the United States of America, stands as the greatest nation on Earth.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was President Obama talking about the meaning of July 4th. Gerald Horne, your book, The Counter-Revolution of 1776, is a direct rebuttal of this, as you call, creation myth. Could you talk about that?

GERALD HORNE: Well, with all due respect to President Obama, I think that he represents, in those remarks you just cited, the consensus view. That is to say that, on the one hand, there is little doubt that 1776 represented a step forward with regard to the triumph over monarchy. The problem with 1776 was that it went on to establish what I refer to as the first apartheid state. That is to say, the rights that Mr. Obama refers to were accorded to only those who were defined as white. To that degree, I argue in the book that 1776, in many ways, was analogous to Unilateral Declaration of Independence in the country then known as Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, in November 1965.UDI, Unilateral Declaration of Independence, was in many ways an attempt to forestall decolonization. 1776, in many ways, was an attempt to forestall the abolition of slavery. That attempt succeeded until the experiment crashed and burned in 1861 with the U.S. Civil War, the bloodiest conflict, to this point, the United States has ever been involved in.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Gerald Horne, how does this story, this, what you call, counterrevolution, fit in with your latest book, Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow?

GERALD HORNE: Well, there’s a certain consistency between the two books. Keep in mind that in 1762 Britain temporarily seized Cuba from Spain. And one of the regulations that Britain imposed outraged the settlers, as I argue in both books. What happened was that Britain sought to regulate the slave trade, and the settlers on the North American mainland wanted deregulation of the slave trade, thereby bringing in more Africans. What happens is that that was one of the points of contention that lead to a detonation and a revolt against British rule in 1776.

I go on in the Cuba book to talk about how one of the many reasons why you have so many black people in Cuba was because of the manic energy of U.S. slave traders and slave dealers, particularly going into the Congo River Basin and dragging Africans across the Atlantic. Likewise, I had argued in a previous book on the African slave trade to Brazil that one of the many reasons why you have so many black people in Brazil, more than any place outside of Nigeria, is, once again, because of the manic energy of U.S. slave traders and slave dealers, who go into Angola, in particular, and drag Africans across the Atlantic to Brazil.

It seems to me that it’s very difficult to reconcile the creation myth of this great leap forward for humanity when, after 1776 and the foundation of the United States of America, the United States ousts Britain from control of the African slave trade. Britain then becomes the cop on the beat trying to detain and deter U.S. slave traders and slave dealers. It seems to me that if this was a step forward for humanity, it was certainly not a step forward for Africans, who, the last time I looked, comprise a significant percentage of humanity.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Gerald Horne, so, in other words, as you’re explaining the involvement of American companies in the slave trade in Brazil and Cuba, this—that book and also your The Counter-Revolution of 1776 makes the same point that slavery was not just an issue of interest in the South to the Southern plantation owners, but that in the North, banking, insurance, merchants, shipping were all involved in the slave trade, as well.

GERALD HORNE: Well, Juan, as you well know, New York City was a citadel of the African slave trade, even after the formal abolition of the U.S. role in the African slave trade in 1808. Rhode Island was also a center for the African slave trade. Ditto for Massachusetts. Part of the unity between North and South was that it was in the North that the financing for the African slave trade took place, and it was in the South where you had the Africans deposited. That helps to undermine, to a degree, the very easy notion that the North was abolitionist and the South was pro-slavery.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Gerald Horne, what most surprised you in your research around Cuba, U.S. slavery and Jim Crow?

GERALD HORNE: Well, what most surprised me with regard to both of these projects was the restiveness, the rebelliousness of the Africans involved. It’s well known that the Africans in the Caribbean were very much involved in various extermination plots, liquidation plots, seeking to abolish, through force of arms and violence, the institution of slavery. Unfortunately, I think that historians on the North American mainland have tended to downplay the restiveness of Africans, and I think it’s done a disservice to the descendants of the population of mainland enslaved Africans. That is to say that because the restiveness of Africans in the United States has been downplayed, it leads many African Americans today to either, A, think that their ancestors were chumps—that is to say, that they fought alongside slave owners to bring more freedom to slave owners and more persecution to themselves—or, B, that they were ciphers—that is to say, they stood on the sidelines as their fate was being determined. I think that both of these books seek to disprove those very unfortunate notions.

AMY GOODMAN: So, as we move into the Independence Day weekend next weekend, what do you say to people in the United States?

GERALD HORNE: What I say to the people in the United States is that you have proved that you can be very critical of what you deem to be revolutionary processes. You have a number of scholars and intellectuals who make a good living by critiquing the Cuban Revolution of 1959, by critiquing the Russian Revolution of 1917, by critiquing the French Revolution of the 18th century, but yet we get the impression that what happened in 1776 was all upside, which is rather far-fetched, given what I’ve just laid out before you in terms of how the enslaved African population had their plight worsened by 1776, not to mention the subsequent liquidation of independent Native American polities as a result of 1776. I think that we need a more balanced presentation of the foundation of the United States of America, and I think that there’s no sooner place to begin than next week with July 4th, 2014.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Gerald Horne, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Historian Gerald Horne is author of two new books: The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America as well as Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. He’s a professor of history and African American studies at the University of Houston.

Opinion: It Is Time to Know a Little More About Realities

Fidel Castro speaking in Cuba during the missile crisis. (photo: AFP)

It Is Time to Know a Little More About Realities

By Fidel Castro, CounterPunch

27 July 14

In our era, problems are increasingly more complex and news is produced at the speed of light, as many know. Nothing happens today in our world, which does not teach something to those of us who wish, and are still able, to understand new realities.

The human being is a strange mixture of blind instinct, on one hand, and conscience, on the other.

We are political animals, as, not without reason, affirmed Aristotle, who perhaps influenced humanity’s thinking more than any other ancient philosopher through his almost 200 treatises, according to reports, of which only 31 have been preserved. His teacher was Plato, who left for posterity his famous utopia about the ideal state, which in Syracuse, where he tried to apply it, almost cost him his life. His Political Theory has endured as a designation used to describe ideas as good or bad. Reactionaries often describe both Marx and Lenin as theorists, without taking into consideration that their utopias inspired Russia and China, the two countries called upon to lead a new world which will allow for human survival, if imperialism does not first unleash a criminal, exterminating war.

The Soviet Union, the socialist camp, the People’s Republic of China and North Korea helped us resist, with essential supplies and weapons, the implacable blockade of the United States, the most powerful empire ever to exist. Despite its immense power, it has not been able to squash the small country which has, a few miles off its coasts, for more than half a century, withstood its threats, pirate attacks, the hijacking of fishing boats and sinking of merchant ships, the in-flight destruction of a Cubana Airlines airplane over Barbados, the burning of schools and other similar misdeeds. When it attempted to invade our country with mercenary forces in the vanguard, transported by U.S. warships as the first wave, it was defeated in less than 72 hours. Later, counterrevolutionary bands organized and equipped by the U.S. committed acts of vandalism which led to loss of life and injury to thousands of compatriots.

The largest base of operations for activities against our country, which existed at that time, was located in the state of Florida. Over the course of time, the economic blockade was extended to other NATO countries and other Latin American allies, who during those first years were accomplices to the empire’s criminal policy which lacerated the dreams of Bolívar, Martí and hundreds of other great patriots of irrepressible revolutionary conduct in Latin America.

Our small country was not only denied our right to be an independent nation, like any other among the many in Latin America and the Caribbean, exploited and sacked by them. On the contrary our homeland’s right to independence would be stripped, and manifest destiny would fulfill its task of annexing our island as part of the United States of America’s territory.

During the recently concluded meeting in Fortaleza, an important declaration was approved by the countries which comprise the BRICS group.

The BRICS propose greater macroeconomic coordination among the principal economies, in particular the G-20, as a factor fundamental to the strengthening of prospects for effective and sustainable recovery around the world.

They announced the signing of an accord to constitute the New Development Bank with the goal of mobilizing resources for infrastructure projects and sustainable development in BRICS countries, and others which are emerging or developing.

The bank will have an initial authorized capital of 100 billion dollars. The initial capital agreed upon will be 50 billion dollars, in equal parts from the founding members. The first president of the Board of Governors will be Russia. The first president of the Administrative Council will be Brazil. The first president of the Bank will be India. The Bank headquarters will be in Shanghai.

They also announced the signing of a treaty to establish a common currency reserves fund for contingencies, with an initial size of 100 billion dollars.

Support was reaffirmed for a multilateral system of open, transparent, inclusive, non-discriminatory trade; as well as for the successful conclusion of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Doha Round.

They recognize the important role which state enterprises play in the economy, as well as small and medium sized companies, as creators of employment and wealth.

They reaffirm the need for comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including its Security Council, with the goal of making it more representative, effective and efficient, so that it can respond appropriately to global challenges.

They reiterated condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever it might occur, and expressed their concern about the continuing threat of terrorism and extremism in Syria, while at the same time called upon all Syrian parties to commit to putting an end to terrorist acts perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, their affiliates and other terrorist organizations.

They strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons under any circumstances, and welcomed the decision by the Arab Republic of Syria to adhere to the Convention on Chemical Weapons.

They reaffirmed their commitment to contribute to a just and lasting global solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, based on the universally recognized legal framework, which includes pertinent United Nations resolutions, the Madrid principles and the Arab Peace Initiative, and expressed support for the convocation, as soon as possible, of a conference to establish a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

They reaffirmed their desire that the exploration and utilization of outer space be for peaceful purposes.

They reiterated that there is no alternative to a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear question, and reaffirmed their support for its solution via political and diplomatic channels.

They expressed concern for the situation in Iraq, and supported the Iraqi government in its efforts to overcome the crisis, defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

They expressed concern for the situation in Ukraine and issued a call for broad dialogue, abatement of the conflict, and moderation on the part of all parties involved, with the goal of finding a peaceful political solution.

They reiterated their firm condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and pointed out that the United Nations has a central role to play in the coordination of international action against terrorism, which must be conducted in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Charter, and with respect for human rights and fundamental liberties.

They recognized that climate change is one of the greatest challenges confronting humanity, and issued a call to all countries to act on the decisions adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), looking to reach, by 2015, a successful conclusion of the negotiations to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed-upon document with legal force under the Convention, applicable to all parties, in accordance with the principles and dispositions of the UNFCCC, in particular the principle of common responsibility, although differentiated and in accordance with respective capacities.

They affirmed the strategic importance of education for sustainable development and inclusive economic growth, and emphasized the links between culture and sustainable development.

The next BRICS Summit will be held in Russia, in July, 2015.

It might seem that this is but one more agreement, among the many constantly appearing in cables released by the major Western news agencies. Nevertheless, the meaning is clear and emphatic: Latin America is the geographic area in the world where the United States has imposed the most unequal system on the planet, enjoying of its internal riches, a supply of cheap raw materials, a market for its merchandise, and has been the recipient of its gold and funds which escape their respective countries and are invested by U.S. companies in the country, or any other place in the world.

No one has ever found a response to satisfy the demands of the existent market we know today, although no one can doubt that humanity is moving toward a stage which will be more just than the human society we have known to date.

The abuses committed throughout history are repugnant. Today what is valued is what will happen on our globalized planet in the near future.

How can human beings escape the ignorance, the lack for basic resources for food, heath, education, housing, dignified employment, security and fair compensation. What is most important, must be this or not possible, in this miniscule corner of the universe. If meditating on this is of any use, it is to guarantee in reality the supremacy of human beings.

On my part, I do not have the slightest doubt that when President Xi Jinping completes the activities in his tour of this hemisphere, as did Vladímir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, both countries will be culminating one of the greatest feats of human history.

The BRICS statement approved July 15, 2014 in Fortaleza advocates for greater participation by other countries, especially those struggling for their development, with a view toward promoting cooperation and solidarity with the peoples, and specifically with those of South America, pointing out in a significant paragraph that the BRICS particularly recognize the importance of the South American Union (Unasur) in the promotion of peace and democracy regionally, in the achievement of sustainable development, and the eradication of poverty.

I have already been extensive enough, despite the fact that the range and importance of the issue demand analysis of important questions which require some response.

I thought that in subsequent days there would have been a little more serious analysis of the importance of the BRICS Summit. It would be enough to add up the inhabitants of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to understand that, at this time, they amount to half of the world’s population. In a few decades, China’s Gross Domestic Product will surpass that of the United States. Many states are already requesting yuan and not dollars, not only Brazil, but several of the most important in Latin America, whose products like soy and corn compete with those of the United States. The contribution which Russia and China can make to science, technology and the economic development of South America and the Caribbean is decisive.

The great events of history are not forged in a day. Enormous tests and challenges of increasing complexity are on the horizon. Between China and Venezuela, 38 agreements were signed. 

It is time to know a little more about realities.

Opinion: After Gutting the Voting Rights Act ...

With the United States government continually going the wrong way on workers rights and liberties, it doesn't 'pay' for common people to live in America anymore. Elizabeth Warren says 'fight back' but it is a losing battle. It is time for all good Americans to return to their roots, and live better, in another land.

After Gutting the Voting Rights Act ...

By Elizabeth Warren, The Washington Post

22 January 15

he Supreme Court appears poised to continue its systematic assault on our core civil rights laws. Aftergutting the Voting Rights Act just two years ago, the court set its sights on our country’s fair housing laws when it heard oral arguments today in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. As with the voting rights decision, a decision limiting the scope of the housing laws would ignore the will of Congress and undermine basic principles of racial equality. But there is even more at stake in the fair housing case, because the wrong decision would reduce economic opportunities for working families and raise the risk of another financial crisis.

In 1968, Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act to combat segregation in housing. Congress drafted the act to give families two options to challenge discrimination: a claim that someone intentionally discriminated against them on the basis of race and a separate claim that someone adopted a policy or practice that had a disparate discriminatory impact on minority families.

Intentional discrimination cases are notoriously hard to prove because they require evidence of a person’s state of mind. As a result, most housing segregation cases are brought on the second basis: disparate impact. Those cases are no easy lift either. To find a disparate-impact violation, a court must conclude that a challenged practice has a disproportionately negative effect on otherwise similar racial groups and that there is no nondiscriminatory explanation for the practice. Despite that high bar, disparate-impact claims have been the main tool for attacking some of the most persistent practices contributing to housing segregation.

Congress clearly intended to create two paths to challenge housing discrimination. For the past 47 years, appellate courts across the country have uniformly upheld the existence of Fair Housing Act disparate-impact claims. When it amended the law in 1988, Congress did nothing to question that settled understanding. In fact, with overwhelming majorities in both houses, it made the opposite decision, expanding the act to cover additional types of claims. Yet experienced watchers of the Supreme Court believe it is ready to defy Congress and ignore the country’s appellate courts by eliminating the disparate-impact test altogether.

Such a ruling would inevitably result in far more segregated communities. Seventeen states, with both Democratic and Republican governors — from Massachusetts and California to North Carolina and Utah — have joined to warn that jettisoning disparate-impact claims would eliminate “an especially important tool to combat the kinds of discrimination that perpetuate segregation.” That is deeply troubling on its face, but the economic effects are even broader.

Housing segregation has a powerful impact on opportunities to build economic security. Data show that lower- and middle-income families living in more segregated communities have a harder time climbing the economic ladder. A group of researchers from Harvard University and the University of California at Berkeley studied cities across the United States to assess what factors helped those in the lowest income bracket reach the highest income bracket later in life. They concluded that a lower level of housing segregation was one of only five factors consistently associated with upward mobility. Increasing segregation would just add to the troubles facing today’s middle class.

Undercutting our fair housing laws also would increase the risk of another financial crisis. In the wake of the 2008 economic collapse, the Justice Department found that several big banks and other mortgage lenders had violated the Fair Housing Act’s disparate-impact standard by steering borrowers of color into more expensive mortgages than white borrowers with similar financial profiles. While lenders profited in the short term, these families were unable to keep up with their payments when housing prices fell, contributing to the chain reaction throughout the financial system. As the crisis demonstrated, we need stronger fair housing laws, not weaker ones that allow lenders to return to the risky — but lucrative — practices that set the stage for the last crash.

But the big financial institutions want access to those profits — no matter the risks. That’s why the American Financial Services Association, the American Insurance Association and the American Bankers Association are all pressing the court to eliminate disparate-impact claims. The giant corporations that these groups serve are hoping that limiting a basic civil rights law will give them new ways to tilt the playing field even more steeply against hardworking families.

The promise of our country is our commitment to build opportunities — not just for some of our families, but for all of our families. We’ve seen what happens when the narrow, short-term interests of the financial industry take precedence over this basic commitment. We can only hope the Supreme Court has learned that lesson, too.

Answering for America's Madness by Ann Jones

By Ann Jones, a TomDispatch regular, and author of Kabul in Winter: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan, among other books, and most recently They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return From America’s Wars — The Untold Story, a Dispatch Books project. Originally published at Tomgram

Americans who live abroad — more than six million of us worldwide (not counting those who work for the U.S. government) — often face hard questions about our country from people we live among. Europeans, Asians, and Africans ask us to explain everything that baffles them about the increasingly odd and troubling conduct of the United States.  Polite people, normally reluctant to risk offending a guest, complain that America’s trigger-happiness, cutthroat free-marketeering, and “exceptionality” have gone on for too long to be considered just an adolescent phase. Which means that we Americans abroad are regularly asked to account for the behavior of our rebranded “homeland,” now conspicuously in decline and increasingly out of step with the rest of the world.

In my long nomadic life, I’ve had the good fortune to live, work, or travel in all but a handful of countries on this planet.  I’ve been to both poles and a great many places in between, and nosy as I am, I’ve talked with people all along the way. I still remember a time when to be an American was to be envied. The country where I grew up after World War II seemed to be respected and admired around the world for way too many reasons to go into here.

That’s changed, of course. Even after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I still met people — in the Middle East, no less — willing to withhold judgment on the U.S.  Many thought that the Supreme Court’s installation of George W. Bush as president was a blunder American voters would correct in the election of 2004. His return to office truly spelled the end of America as the world had known it.  Bush had started a war, opposed by the entire world, because he wanted to and he could. A majority of Americans supported him.  And that was when all the uncomfortable questions really began.

In the early fall of 2014, I traveled from my home in Oslo, Norway, through much of Eastern and Central Europe. Everywhere I went in those two months, moments after locals realized I was an American the questions started and, polite as they usually were, most of them had a single underlying theme: Have Americans gone over the edge? Are you crazy? Please explain.

Then recently, I traveled back to the “homeland.”  It struck me there that most Americans have no idea just how strange we now seem to much of the world. In my experience, foreign observers are far better informed about us than the average American is about them. This is partly because the “news” in the American media is so parochial and so limited in its views both of how we act and how other countries think — even countries with which we were recently, are currently, or threaten soon to be at war. America’s belligerence alone, not to mention its financial acrobatics, compels the rest of the world to keep close track of us.  Who knows, after all, what conflict the Americans may drag you into next, as target or reluctant ally?

So wherever we expatriates settle on the planet, we find someone who wants to talk about the latest American events, large and small: another country bombed in the name of our “national security,” another peaceful protest march attacked by our increasingly militarized police, another diatribe against “big government” by yet another wannabe candidate who hopes to head that very government in Washington.  Such news leaves foreign audiences puzzled and full of trepidation.

Question Time

Take the questions stumping Europeans in the Obama years (which 1.6 million Americans residing in Europe regularly find thrown our way).  At the absolute top of the list: “Why would anyone oppose national health care?” European and other industrialized countries have had some form of national health care since the 1930s or 1940s, Germany since 1880.  Some versions, as in France and Great Britain, have devolved into two-tier public and private systems.  Yet even the privileged who pay for a faster track would not begrudge their fellow citizens government-funded comprehensive health care. That so many Americans do strikes Europeans as baffling, if not frankly brutal. 

In the Scandinavian countries, long considered to be the most socially advanced in the world, a national (physical and mental) health program, funded by the state, is a big part — but only a part — of a more general social welfare system.  In Norway, where I live, all citizens also have an equal right to education (state subsidizedpreschool from age one, and free schools from age six through specialty training or university education and beyond), unemployment benefits, job-placement and paid retraining services, paid parental leave, old age pensions, and more.  These benefits are not merely an emergency “safety net”; that is, charitable payments grudgingly bestowed upon the needy.  They are universal: equally available to all citizens as human rights encouraging social harmony — or as our own U.S. constitution would put it, “domestic tranquility.”  It’s no wonder that, for many years, international evaluators have ranked Norway as the best place to grow old, to be a woman, and to raise a child. The title of “best” or “happiest” place to live on Earth comes down to a neighborly contest among Norway and the other Nordic social democracies, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland.

In Norway, all benefits are paid for mainly by high taxation. Compared to the mind-numbing enigma of the U.S. tax code, Norway’s is remarkably straightforward, taxing income from labor and pensions progressively, so that those with higher incomes pay more. The tax department does the calculations, sends an annual bill, and taxpayers, though free to dispute the sum, willingly pay up, knowing what they and their children get in return. And because government policies effectively redistribute wealth and tend to narrow the country’s slim income gap, most Norwegians sail pretty comfortably in the same boat. (Think about that!)

Life and Liberty

This system didn’t just happen. It was planned. Sweden led the way in the 1930s, and all five Nordic countries pitched in during the postwar period to develop their own variations of what came to be called the Nordic Model: a balance of regulated capitalism, universal social welfare, political democracy, and the highest levels of gender and economic equality on the planet. It’s their system. They invented it. They like it. Despite the efforts of an occasional conservative government to muck it up, they maintain it. Why?

In all the Nordic countries, there is broad general agreement across the political spectrum that only when people’s basic needs are met — when they can cease to worry about their jobs, their incomes, their housing, their transportation, their health care, their kids’ education, and their aging parents — only then can they be free to do as they like. While the U.S. settles for the fantasy that, from birth, every kid has an equal shot at the American dream, Nordic social welfare systems lay the foundations for a more authentic equality and individualism.

These ideas are not novel. They are implied in the preamble to our own Constitution. You know, the part about “we the People” forming  “a more perfect Union” to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  Even as he prepared the nation for war, President Franklin D. Roosevelt memorably specified components of what that general welfare should be in his State of the Union address in 1941. Among the “simple basic things that must never be lost sight of,” he listed “equality of opportunity for youth and others, jobs for those who can work, security for those who need it, the ending of special privileges for the few, the preservation of civil liberties for all,” and oh yes, higher taxes to pay for those things and for the cost of defensive armaments.

Knowing that Americans used to support such ideas, a Norwegian today is appalled to learn that a CEO of a major American corporation makes between 300 and 400 times as much as its average employee. Or that governors Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chris Christie of New Jersey, having run up their state’s debts by cutting taxes for the rich, now plan to cover the loss with money snatched from the pension funds of workers in the public sector. To a Norwegian, the job of government is to distribute the country’s good fortune reasonably equally, not send it zooming upward, as in America today, to a sticky-fingered one percent.

In their planning, Norwegians tend to do things slowly, always thinking of the long term, envisioning what a better life might be for their children, their posterity.  That’s why a Norwegian, or any northern European, is aghast to learn that two-thirds of American college students finish their education in the red, some owing $100,000 or more. Or that in the U.S., still the world’s richest country, one in three children lives in poverty, along with one in fiveyoung people between the ages of 18 and 34. Or that America’s recent multi-trillion-dollar wars were fought on a credit card to be paid off by our kids. Which brings us back to that word: brutal.

Implications of brutality, or of a kind of uncivilized inhumanity, seem to lurk in so many other questions foreign observers ask about America like: How could you set up that concentration camp in Cuba, and why can’t you shut it down?  Or: How can you pretend to be a Christian country and still carry out the death penalty? The follow-up to which often is: How could you pick as president a man proud of executing his fellow citizens at the fastest raterecorded in Texas history?  (Europeans will not soon forget George W. Bush.)

Other things I’ve had to answer for include:

* Why can’t you Americans stop interfering with women’s health care?

* Why can’t you understand science?

* How can you still be so blind to the reality of climate change?

* How can you speak of the rule of law when your presidents break international laws to make war whenever they want?

* How can you hand over the power to blow up the planet to one lone, ordinary man?

* How can you throw away the Geneva Conventions and your principles to advocate torture?

* Why do you Americans like guns so much?  Why do you kill each other at such a rate?

To many, the most baffling and important question of all is: Why do you send your military all over the world to stir up more and more trouble for all of us?

That last question is particularly pressing because countries historically friendly to the United States, from Australia to Finland, are struggling to keep up with an influx of refugees from America’s wars and interventions. Throughout Western Europe and Scandinavia, right-wing parties that have scarcely or never played a role in government are now rising rapidly on a wave of opposition to long-established immigration policies. Only last month, such a party almost toppled the sitting social democratic government of Sweden, a generous country that has absorbed more than its fair share of asylum seekers fleeing the shock waves of “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.”

The Way We Are

Europeans understand, as it seems Americans do not, the intimate connection between a country’s domestic and foreign policies. They often trace America’s reckless conduct abroad to its refusal to put its own house in order.  They’ve watched the United States unravel its flimsy safety net, fail to replace its decaying infrastructure, disempower most of its organized labor, diminish its schools, bring its national legislature to a standstill, and create the greatest degree of economic and social inequality in almost a century. They understand why Americans, who have ever less personal security and next to no social welfare system, are becoming more anxious and fearful. They understand as well why so many Americans have lost trust in a government that has done so little new for them over the past three decades or more, except for Obama’s endlessly embattled health care effort, which seems to most Europeans a pathetically modest proposal.

What baffles so many of them, though, is how ordinary Americans in startling numbers have been persuaded to dislike “big government” and yet support its new representatives, bought and paid for by the rich. How to explain that? In Norway’s capital, where a statue of a contemplative President Roosevelt overlooks the harbor, many America-watchers think he may have been the last U.S. president who understood and could explain to the citizenry what government might do for all of them. Struggling Americans, having forgotten all that, take aim at unknown enemies far away — or on the far side of their own towns. 

It’s hard to know why we are the way we are, and — believe me — even harder to explain it to others. Crazy may be too strong a word, too broad and vague to pin down the problem. Some people who question me say that the U.S. is “paranoid,” “backward,” “behind the times,” “vain,” “greedy,” “self-absorbed,” or simply “dumb.”  Others, more charitably, imply that Americans are merely “ill-informed,” “misguided,” “misled,” or “asleep,” and could still recover sanity.  But wherever I travel, the questions follow, suggesting that the United States, if not exactly crazy, is decidedly a danger to itself and others. It’s past time to wake up, America, and look around.  There’s another world out here, an old and friendly one across the ocean, and it’s full of good ideas, tried and true.

Unmournable Bodies - The pretension of 'free speech' in The Western World

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/unmournable-bodies

Quitting America: Giving up citizenship to save money on taxes

A 2010 tax law has caused a threefold increase in Americans relinquishing their citizenship.

December 30, 2014 1:22PM ET

by Jaime Hellman   @JaimeHellman

There’s been a lot in the news lately about President Barack Obama’s executive action protecting undocumented immigrants who would like to become citizens of the United States. But there are thousands of Americans who are voluntarily giving up their citizenship in order to avoid paying a new tax that is part of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The critics say the FATCA has caused a threefold increase in the number of Americans surrendering their passports. From 2010 to 2013, 7,246 Americans renounced their citizenship, compared with only 1,721 from 2006 to 2009, the four years before the FATCA was enacted. 

Number of Americans relinquishing their passports.

Passed in 2010 by Congress, FATCA was intended to crack down on overseas tax cheats, with the Congressional Research Service projecting that the FATCA would generate $8.7 billion over 10 years.

The FATCA was inspired by the testimony in 2007 of Bradley Birkenfeld, a former UBS banker turned whistleblower. He described before Congress how UBS used exotic techniques to help its American clients evade paying taxes. Largely on the basis of his testimony, UBS was fined $780 million in 2009, and the bank turned over the names of 4,500 U.S. account holders to the IRS.

The law imposes a 30 percent tax on Americans who have money in foreign banks or countries that refuse to identify and provide information on their American clients. To date, over 77,000 institutions and 112 countries have signed off on the FATCA. But that leaves 83 countries that are not FATCA compliant, including Russia, Argentina, Monaco, Bosnia, Pakistan and Vietnam.

Critics say the FATCA has gone too far, is too draconian and is imposing an undue hardship on Americans living overseas. So says Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. He says the law is “causing lots of headaches and heartaches around the world, not only for foreign financial institutions but also for overseas Americans, who are now being treated as Pyrrhus because financial institutions view them as too costly to service.”

The U.S. is one of the few countries that tax its citizen on the basis of nationality, not residency. And faced with a larger tax bill, thousands of Americans living overseas would rather give up their passports then pay a new tax to Uncle Sam. The Taxpayer Advocate’s Office of the IRS has reported that the FATCA “has the potential to be burdensome, overly broad and detrimental to taxpayer rights.”

Mitchell says, “An American living and working in some other country is required to not only pay tax to that country where they live but also file a tax return to the U.S. No other civilized country does that.”

One thing is clear: For an increasing number of American citizens, holding on to a bigger share of their money has become more important than holding on to their U.S. passports. 

FOCUS | The Empire Is Crumbling. That Is Why It Needs War

‘I am a rebel; therefore I am Russian’, to paraphrase Albert Camus

FOCUS | The Empire Is Crumbling. That Is Why It Needs War

'The world is in turmoil. Like in the early 1940's, something tremendous is gaining shape, something irreversible.' Andre Vltchek, CounterPunch

READERSUPPORTEDNEWS.ORG|BY ANDRE VLTCHEK, COUNTERPUNCH