December + January Roundup: The War on Culture Workers
Newsletter 028 -- Journalism. The Red Sea. Where is America's Moral Center?
We’re back! And, I hope you’ve enjoyed a smooth transition into 2024!
Since the beginning of December, I have been gathering articles that investigate the role of culture workers in times of war and conflict. It was a topic I became very interested in, I think because I’d like to consider myself somewhat of a culture worker. And, since the start of the war on Gaza, I’ve been struggling to figure out what my role and responsibilities are during these dark and trying times. I kept collecting and reading and ultimately realized that to be as thoughtful as I wanted to be to present this topic, I needed more time to sit with it. So, I kept researching, reading, and writing through January too. I took the culture worker lens and used it to understand other news stories I came across and this newsletter is the result of my two-month rabbit hole. What I didn’t get to mention below, but believe is important context for parts of this discussion, are the huge cuts made to newsrooms like the Los Angeles Times, Pitchfork, Time, and the Conde Nast strike that occurred in the last week and a half. The ominous state of our biggest newsrooms should concern us all.
So, here we go: this is a not-very concise collection of thoughts, and articles outlining the current conversation being had about culture workers in times of war and conflict (and other global affairs).
Don't worry, I won’t make this 2-in-1 newsletter a regular thing! (haha)
Enjoy!
» A Lesson In Geography
The Houthis are a Yemeni rebel group who’ve taken control of passing cargo ships as they make their way through the Red Sea – a critical shipping pathway from Asia, East Africa, and the Middle East to Europe. Ships have rerouted themselves around the African continent to avoid their ships being overtaken, which has caused delivery delays. The first ship the Houthis overtook was an Israeli ship (allegedly) carrying war supplies. This move was in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Due to its geographic importance to trade between Europe and several other continents, I predict we will be hearing a lot more about the Red Sea this year.
“This isn't an African problem, this is a very globalized problem. Sudan sits on the Red Sea, it sits in the Horn of Africa, it sits in the Sahel, it sits in North Africa, very close to Europe. Quite clearly, what happens in Sudan affects a lot of countries and a lot of regions.”
Because of the Red Sea’s strategic importance — there are several conflicts raging along its edges. Control of parts of this sea means control of a critical trade route with access to Europe. What is happening in Sudan is the product of both foreign and national bad-faith actors. But if the war in Sudan continues, many are worried that neighboring countries will exacerbate the conflict in an attempt to gain a foothold along the Red Sea, thereby expanding the proxy dynamic of this war.
Ethiopia has been vying for access to the sea for many decades, either through Djibouti or Eritrea. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has reignited a huge push to strike up a deal with neighboring countries to gain access to the sea. They are most interested in a seaport on the Red Sea but may be open to exploring an option they had considered in the past — access to the sea along the Gulf of Aden, made possible by Somaliland. Their serious search for access has broader implications for the region because of their global and regional importance.
“God created war so that Americans would learn geography.”
— Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad
» Rising Anti-War Sentiments And A Push To Demilitarize
A Working Class Foreign Policy is Coming
“We’re gonna get yelled at to stay in our lane, and focus on our jobs or whatever, but we’ve waited for the Democrats forever to become this great institution of working people and peace throughout the world, and they suck. We no longer can trust the Democrats,” Vicente said. “The Republicans straight up tell us they don’t like us. So we’re gonna have to do it ourselves. We’re gonna have to fight for our own better working conditions and lifestyles of the middle class here, and we’re gonna have to advocate for peace around the world.” (Quote from article)
“While US politicians from both parties cover it in euphemism, the proper role they see for the working class in foreign policy is as fodder for factories and battlefields, valorized in rhetoric to obscure their exploitation.” (Quote from article)
Are you going to preach about a foreign policy for the middle class again?
Yes, I am. Because good and thoughtful policy is enduring, and we need to implement more of it.
Much like how we think through solving problems in other sectors, we start by talking to those who are the most affected by the problem, and who will be most affected by the solution. I have been arguing that the group most affected by American foreign policy is the middle class. What do I mean when I say foreign policy for the middle class? It looks like what we’re seeing now – unions across America getting involved in international affairs. In times of war, the working class maintains the industrial sector with their labor, therefore playing a critical role in (and sometimes, directly) assisting war efforts. This is what’s so significant about some of our nation's largest labor unions organizing, protesting, and calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. This cruel duality exists on such a grand scale here in America because we’re a melting pot. We can’t, on one hand, purport that we are a democratic haven, a melting pot, the most desirable in the world, and not work in the interests of the communities that make this true. A foreign policy built on creating a symbiosis between everyday “working class” Americans, and everyday “working class” people around the world, is far more durable and ultimately more beneficial to the interests of democracy.
A non-exhaustive list of unions that have called for a ceasefire in Gaza:
United Auto Workers
United Electrical Workers
American Postal Workers Union
1199SEIU (America’s largest healthcare union)
Service Employees International Union (second-largest public service employees union in the US)
Gaza Ceasefire Protestors Are Shutting Down Weapons Manufacturers
For more than 100 days, ceasefire protestors have organized across the country to protest the sale of weapons to Israel. Protests calling for a ceasefire are echoes of America’s response to the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 70s. Then, as we are seeing now, protests were attended largely by children and women, and young adults who might categorize themselves as anti-establishment. Opposition to the Vietnam War grew when African American civil rights activists took a stand. Many of these same Civil Rights activists have stepped back into their activist shoes to call for a ceasefire and an end to the Israeli occupation. Another segment that protested the Vietnam War was organized labor groups. The Vietnam War had a lasting impression on American life, self-perception, and polity. It was the first war that Americans, began to question US involvement in far-off nations, and the systems set up to support this (like the draft system) kind of militarism. Unlike in wars before, the war in Vietnam was broadcast on television across the country. If this sounds resonant to the moment we are in now, that's precisely my point. Is this our Vietnam? The difference I see between political engagement, then and now, is that, now, pushback against US imperialism and rampant militarization is being met with a deeper and more critical understanding of our government’s behavior and systems. Protestors are strategically levying their opposition by costing companies money through their agitation efforts; protestors have made the important connection between our capitalist system and our militarism and are exploiting it. Because of social media Americans are watching what is happening on the ground in Gaza every day with horrifying awareness that our taxes, our government is funding it — this is the most radicalizing factor. It’s what has led to consistent agitation in public and private spaces around the country. What is happening in Gaza has driven Americans to demand a different way, a shedding of, or change to, the political systems and relationships that have crippled our foreign policy, and made militarism our only crutch.
“People who live in smaller countries do have the luxury of not thinking a lot about foreign policy. Americans don’t have that luxury. They live in a nuclear-armed superpower that leads the most powerful military alliance that the planet’s ever seen. That creates different responsibilities.” — Tom Nichols (staff writer at the Atlantic and author)
» Culture Workers Amidst A Culture War
The Responsibility of Culture Workers to Help Stop the War on Gaza
The culture workers this piece refers to are the writers, researchers, and media professionals in society. They have a responsibility to speak about these events with “moral clarity” but this piece argues that their responsibility doesn't end there. It's not enough for these professionals to passively engage with the news. The article argues that a culture worker’s responsibility is also to “be a part of a mass, organized, strategic attack on the power structure that currently guarantees Israel’s ability to wage war and maintain occupation and apartheid.” Culture workers like these are uniquely equipped to help us make sense of and communicate dense and confusing information, it is why they are so necessary to society and this moment in particular. And society is begging for this – it is why so many have been critical of the New York Times and other news outlets which through their lack of coverage or biased explanations of the stories they do cover, have not upheld their part of the social contract (or done their job properly). On the other hand, there are plenty of culture workers who’ve quit because they no longer want to contribute or participate in a cultural institution that has lost its way. Culture workers, in times of war and great strife, should feel a sense of responsibility to society — to dig into the truth, to optimize their gifts by translating pertinent information that will help society more intentionally and informatively move through these moments. These highly trained individuals have the exact skill sets needed to contribute greatly to our collective movements for liberation. And most importantly, in times like these, culture workers must record these events for posterity.
“You have all the billionaires giving money to universities, and universities being extremely anxious, and you have the professors and the students being completely shocked by something that has never been so visible before – how money runs the academic world is not something people like to talk about, but now it’s out there.” — Judith Gurewich
“Culture workers are looking at the police protection that's given to right-wing activists, like the AfD and others, and then they’re seeing their own events, which in many cases are book launches, conferences, prize-giving ceremonies, and they’re seeing them canceled. It wasn’t just Adania’s ceremony at Frankfurt that’s been canceled recently… we’re seeing peaceful cultural events being canceled across the board, and meanwhile, there is a very very real threat of far-right activism, and indeed violence, in Germany which seems to be going unchecked.” — Katharine Halls
In this conversation with independent publishers, translators, and other literary professionals, they discuss what happened at The Frankfurt Book Fair where Palestinian author, Adania Shibli, was announced as the winner of Litprom’s 2023 LiBeraturpreis literature award for her book “Minor Details”, but after October 7th, Litprom announced they were cancelling her award ceremony. In their discussion, they investigate what moves like this mean for culture workers and cultural institutions if these patterns of silencing persist.
The Free Speech Debate is a Trap
This article was a great thought exercise about the meaning of the terms “free speech” and “culture wars” in American discourse. Andrea Long Chu’s definition of “culture war”, presented in this article is a useful articulation of the current moment. She explains that a better understanding and more accurate alignment of the true definition will allow American society to engage in debates that are worth our time. By Chu’s definition, a culture war is when we as a society engage in open and useful conflict over how our cultural institutions should operate to best serve the people, she suggests that a true culture war is a dispute about, and involving, the cultural industry of America (think magazines, universities, Hollywood/entertainment, cultural institutions like 92NY, etc.). This is important because as you’ll see throughout the rest of this newsletter, we see culture workers pushing back or removing themselves (or being removed from) institutions for their pro-Palestine stance. Chu asks us to think about how we can reform the way our cultural institutions operate – as these are private or donor-funded institutions, it is their right to include or exclude programming in line with their stated mission and values. Any action they take is meant to clarify those values and their position. So when we hear about cultural institutions revoking awards and canceling engagements, we can be disappointed, but I think we must then take a look at where else these voices, these culture workers, might be free to share their message and their work. This ties nicely back into her thoughts on free speech. She agrees that free speech is an important “public utility in a democratic society” but it’s not everything and she asserts that we aren’t grasping the true point of the First Amendment which only forbids the government from curtailing speech, not cultural institutions or private organizations (like universities). An appropriate response would be to push back if you feel like what you’re saying is in line with the values of their community, or divest from these institutions if you find they don't align with your values. The article gave me a lot to chew on, but I keep coming back to the idea of divesting from cultural institutions. As a woman of color, this option makes the most sense to me. After all, they’re businesses, and their status, power, and influence rely on the money and attention we funnel in their direction. Our investment allows them greater status, power, and influence, thereby legitimizing their set of principles as American cultural values.
“I think that the way memory politics functions now in Europe, and in the United States, but particularly in Germany, is that their cornerstone is that you can’t compare the Holocaust to anything. It’s a singular event that stands outside of history. My argument is that in order to learn from history we have to compare. That actually has to be a constant exercise. We are not better people or smarter people, or more educated people than the people who lived 90 years ago. The only thing that makes us different from those people is that, in their imagination, the Holocaust didn’t yet exist. And in ours it does. We know that it’s possible. And the way to prevent it is to be vigilant in the way that Hannah Arendt in fact and other Jewish thinkers who survived the Holocaust were vigilant. ”— Masha Gessen
Masha Gessen’s Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought was postponed due to an article she wrote comparing pre-October 7th Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. Germany has been staunchly unwelcoming to pro-Palestine sentiment, cracking down on protests and other forms of public dissent with vigor and violence not seen in other parts of the West. This was their stance long before this recent wave of calls for Palestinian freedom. Gessen discusses in her interview how Germany’s response to what they deem antisemitism has harmed Jewish people and stems from latent antisemitism masking as care for, and protection of, the Jewish community. Many cultural institutions have turned their backs and reneged on presenting awards to those who have either publicly supported the calls for a free Palestine or who themselves are Palestinian. The importance of artists to reflect the times and their lived experiences through their art is widely understood to be quintessential to humanity. If our cultural institutions become hostile to this moment in history, there are serious consequences to the future of the arts of this time and, it should be said, deems these institutions unreliable, and therefore unfit, to be the arbiters, recorders, curators or keepers of our cultural heritage.
The More of Us There Are, The More of Us There Are
The artist Nan Goldin discusses her involvement in protests of the New York Times over their biased coverage of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. As an artist, she has refused to work with the NYT on photoshoots she was hired for and has been participating in protests at their bureau and events in New York. Goldin believes that the more people publicly speak out against what’s happening in Gaza, the more safety there will be for others who are speaking out. This is evident in Israel’s targeted attacks on journalists in Gaza. According to The Guardian and Reporters Without Borders, 81 journalists have been killed in Gaza since October 7th (according to Al Jazeera, as of December 23rd, 100 journalists have been killed; as of January 27th 83 journalists have been killed according to Committee to Protect Journalists). The most followed, and therefore the most prominent journalists, recording and relaying what is happening inside of Gaza, are still alive and active in their duties on the ground. Some may be wondering how this is possible: the answer, Goldin would say, is because they’ve amassed such large followings Israeli forces have had to be far more strategic in how they keep them from doing their jobs. Following Goldin’s logic, the more people who follow these journalists, the greater the backlash will be if something happens to them, and that would not be in Israel’s interest. Our viewership offers journalists some safety. When well-known cultural workers in the West, like Nan Goldin, lend their bodies and their voices to the ceasefire movement, they offer the rest of the movement legitimacy and safety.
» Journalists Have Never Been More Important, And More Vulnerable
“It refers to other global media entities that are taking the initiative to report from what they know. Basically saying that what we're seeing now, the reportage, the reporting about Gaza, in the West, had been, to some extent, so absurd, that the veils have dropped. For the first time, I think in my life, I have seen the hegemonic control of the West over media narratives, becoming destabilized.”
The one topic touched on in this forum that I thought was the most meaningful to the topic of culture workers and media, was their discussion about “The Al Jazeera Effect”. The Al Jazeera Effect refers to global media entities that take the initiative to report from and about what they know. The concept takes what Al Jazeera has done for the Middle East and uses its model to describe the impact new media and media sources, like Al Jazeera (them being the first to implement this model) have, on global politics, and reducing the government and mainstream media's monopoly on information. Its greatest impact is seen in how they’ve successfully empowered an entire region that lacked a global voice. Al Jazeera was created with the specific focus of reporting on and discussing what was happening in countries across the Middle East. They understood the region better than Western media outlets and wanted to push back on the tropes that were created and maintained by Western media. Al Jazeera journalists are not parachute journalists, they live in these areas of conflict and report from inside – they have the access, knowledge, and resources to cover the region extensively and verifiably. For this reason, they’ve become a trusted source of information for everyday folks across the region and beyond. Al Jazeera journalists were the only ones living and working in Gaza prior to Israeli bombardment and the sealing off of the borders – because of them, we know what is happening on the ground. This Al Jazeera Effect also reinforces the importance of local journalism. These smaller more focused newsrooms are important to the larger ecosystem of news and media proliferation because it means that we don’t have to rely on a handful of larger media companies for our news. If the future is a multipolar world order, then we will need journalists specialized in regions around the globe who can interpret these centers of power to the rest of the world.
This episode discusses the case against Wall Street Journal journalist, Evan Gershkovich, who is currently being held in prison in Russia. The country has detained him because of what he has written about the war in Ukraine. Gershkovich’s situation is not the only one of its kind. Between the war in Ukraine and Gaza, this past year has been the most deadly year for journalists. We’ve seen more and more cases of journalists being detained for reporting unfavorably on crimes of the state. There are protections that journalists and members of the press are supposed to have when they’re reporting out in the field, but these are no longer being respected. One important step governments can take to restore these protections to journalists is to impose repercussions or acknowledge that there is a breach in the norms of behavior. Journalists based in these foreign outposts are important to the American public’s understanding of what is happening around the world. If the stakes become too high for journalists to feel comfortable reporting abroad, and they lose confidence in America’s ability to support them and prioritize their safety, we will lose incredibly important knowledge bases around the world.
When asked how he feels about the double standard argument regarding the discrepancy in Western support for the Ukrainian cause, versus the Palestinian cause, and the significant loss of media focus on Ukraine since the war on Gaza began, this was Dmytro Kuleba's response:
“If one hundred people die one day, tomorrow in Ukraine, I’m sure we will be on the front page again. But, do I want to pay this price for reappearing on the front page? No, I don’t…Because we live in a cynical world, I know one fact: people get used to everything. What really matters is that we stay focused on ending the wars, stopping peoples’ suffering, and restoring peace. Instead of finding excuses for not doing so.” — Dmytro Kuleba (Ukrainian Foreign Minister)
In this discussion about how or why certain wars and conflicts garner more attention than others, these two points seemed worth highlighting:
We know that in conflict zones, journalism becomes dangerous, and in the most dire cases, impossible to do. But a factor I hadn’t considered before is how the robustness of the media infrastructure that exists before conflict breaks out has a huge impact on whether journalism is possible in these places during a conflict.
“The war has resulted in the freezing of the work of many journalists. Many journalist have fled with their families. Scores of media outlets, newspapers, radio stations, have stopped. The ability of ground producers to work with international media has stopped…But also, I think it’s important to remember that Khartoum isn't a media hub. It's not Cairo, it's not Nairobi, it's not Jerusalem. There weren't many international journalists to begin with.” — Isma’il Kushkush (Sudanese American journalist)
With regards to international coverage of war in places like Sudan, countries calculate as to whether these conflicts are of economic or political importance to them, before deciding if it's worth sending journalists out to cover it.
“It's also a matter of where each country sees their vital national interest. The French are much more interested in French-speaking West Africa. Britain gets interested in the Commonwealth countries…It's based on a factor of national interest. Is your economy at stake? There's no oil in many of those places.” — William Patey (former British Ambassador to Sudan)
» The Fight for America’s Moral Center
Black Pastors Pressure Biden to Call for Cease-Fire in Gaza
“Black clergy have seen war, militarism, poverty, and racism all connected,” said Barbara Williams-Skinner, co-convener of the National African American Clergy Network…“But the Israel-Gaza war, unlike Iran and Afghanistan, has evoked the kind of deep-seated angst among Black people that I have not seen since the civil rights movement.” (Quote from article)
More than 1,000 Black pastors have issued their demand for a ceasefire and the release of all hostages in a sit-down meeting with White House officials. These pastors represent a wide range of political leanings from conservative Southern Baptists to progressive nondenominational congregations across the country. While every Democrat I know is having a difficult time figuring out how to vote their conscience in this upcoming presidential election, the article relays similar concerns widespread among Black Americans, one of the democratic party’s largest voting blocs. What stood out to me is that the pastors who were interviewed also mentioned their sense that Black folks are feeling more and more disenfranchised by the Democratic party and its leadership in general – their dismay does not only lie with Biden. They feel that the party as a whole has in many ways spurred this war on and diverged from its moral center. This is not a sentiment exclusive to Black voters, many Middle Eastern and Muslim voters are also feeling disenfranchised by Biden, his administration, and the democratic party at large. These two voting groups will play a critical role in the outcomes of this presidential election, a reality we are quite aware of, and one which I believe has made it very difficult for many of us to weigh this decision.
“Not a Day Goes by Where I Dont Think About Leaving”
“People also see that there’s a serious disconnect between the lessons we learned from the last 20 years of the War on Terror and what the US government is helping Israel do right now. For years, people within the intelligence and national security community have talked about how the best counterterrorism strategy is to not kill civilians. But right now even this idea is being disregarded, which fuels dissent.” (Quote from article)
“Our voice is uniquely powerful because we are President Joe Biden’s own staff. My hope is that it’s going to become untenable for him and his closest aides to ignore not only the majority of Americans calling for an end to this violence, but also many of the staff he himself has picked to execute his agenda.” (Quote from article)
Back in October, many State Department officials signed onto a Dissent Cable expressing their objection to how the Biden administration was responding to the war in Gaza. Months later there is still consistent, and even more public, dissent among government officials and from those on Biden's staff. The debate of old is whether or not someone can change a system from within – I go back and forth on this argument. Instances like this are a good example of a situation I believe to be unfriendly to those who hope to be the change from within. The barriers described in this article, to express dissent within the State Department or Biden’s administration, make change nearly impossible. Some who hoped and tried to change government from within, have left. America has not yet recovered from the staggering brain drain that occurred during the Trump presidency, and the war in Gaza has spurred some very public departures in recent months. The longer the Biden administration pushes against the public’s demand for a different strategy toward Israel, we may continue to see people leave. And, as people of conscience leave politics, what will be left of our governing body?
*P.S. Another quote from the article, and something we should keep an eye on:
“There have also been several Freedom of Information Act requests levied at appointees of color, or Muslim or Arab appointees within agencies, trying to see if they have mentioned Israel, Hamas, and Gaza on their work devices in order to look for anything to use against them.”
For those who celebrate, this past Christmas was met with solemn reverence – I observed that many found it hard to celebrate. Bethlehem, the birth place of Jesus, and Ukraine, the place where the lore of Santa Clause finds its origins, were under bombardment. In this episode, they interviewed people on the ground about how and why these celebrations and traditions looked different this year.
“...one thing I would say…is how uninformed the [American] people in those audiences were about the history of Iran. Oh wow, I mean, people were angry, they were uninformed, and when you put those two combinations together, man, that’s a pretty dangerous combination.” — Rev. M. William Howard Jr.
Reverend M. William Howard Jr. discusses what it was like being invited by the Revolutionary Council to come perform Christmas services for American hostages being held at the American Embassy in Iran during the hostage crisis of 1979. This invitation gave the Revered an opportunity to speak with hostages and Iranians and allowed him to form a clearer picture of how American meddling had an enduring impact on the social and political landscape of Iran. He also talks about how disconnected the American perception of the situation was from the reality on the ground.
If you found this newsletter helpful and engaging, please subscribe and share us with your friends! We’re always looking for contributors so if you’re interested, shoot us an email at [ 823newsletter@gmail.com ]!
In Solidarity,
The 823 Team