Irish-American White Allies, Multi-Culturalism, Northern Ireland, and Struggles for Justice, Equality, and Freedom

I identify not just as Irish-American, but strongly so. If it’s a contest between identifying as Irish-American or white (and although this post will reflect the fact that I don’t have a sociology degree, I believe those two are competing for the same space or something like that and add up to 100%) I identify largely as Irish-American and partly as white.

In my experience many white allies have a problem with how I identify and say it is in conflict with being a white ally. This article will explain why I identify that way. It will also touch on related issues like the anti-racist nature of my N. Ireland activism, my thoughts about ethnicity, the connection between my identity and my decision as an activist to often devote large amounts of time to the issue of N. Ireland, and my record as a white ally.

************

(I primarily think of race in the sense that involves it being socially constructed. That is, the concept of race that involves power, privilege, and socialization. I haven’t, for about 16 years, had a great grasp on socialization (and can’t find anything about racial socialization in my two (more or less) introductory Ethnic Studies books) But I think I understand it enough. I think my grasp of white privilege has gone down a bit in recent years, but I believe that two good examples of what I DO know to be white privilege (to demonstrate that I at least largely understand it) are A) how the police treat you, and B) white people being comfortable dominating a conversation involving people of color (and being ALLOWED by the other white people in the conversation TO dominate the conversation). And I think I have studied the exercise of power over marginalized people enough to understand it)

(Because it makes discussing the subject technically problematic, I’m suspending the idea that all white people are racist)

**************

When I say that I identify partly as white that’s because of three things. My skin color, how I was I socialized, and the fact that I have white privilege. The thing is,  the white race exists only in the following ways:

1. In a VERY limited way connected with skin color and some other physical characteristics.
2. In our society it does if we focus on the concept of race that involves it being socially constructed and involves power and privilege, and it is of course necessary for white people who aren’t racist to acknowledge this reality (it makes a lot more sense to say white people instead of referring to the white race).

But the white race in other senses was invented to justify imperialism, exploitation and to divide the lower classes. Although I lack the sociological knowledge to explain this incredibly well, I see race in the second sense above as artificial. And I see ethnicity as organic (I'm only going to write this once in this post, but with American Indians, nationality might be a better word than ethnicity (also, if we ignore immigrants from Africa and the African diaspora, I'm not sure if ethnicity is the right word for Blacks, but I'm reluctant to say race or nation in the last two sentences of this paragraph, so I'm going with ethnicity)). Ethnicity is more about culture that developed naturally and is not inherently incompatible with equality.

At this point I want to further explain my thoughts on this and, specifically, identify what and who encouraged me to feel that identifying partly or largely based on my ethnicity was important.

One of the first things that encouraged me to go in the direction of identifying the way I do was a comment in a lecture by Angela Davis that I used to have on tape. The (probably host-created) title of her talk mentioned ethnicity in a way that assumed only people of color have ethnicity. She said something about white people needing to do something about their ethnicity (I think what she said was close to “explore” and/or “assert”). I believe that it was sometime in 1999 or 2000 when I heard that and I think the talk may have been sometime earlier in the 90s.

There was one thing that Ward Churchill said in a Native American Studies class he taught that I took that also got me thinking the way I have. It would have been 1998 or 1999 when I took that class. I asked some question more or less about my belief that the racial identity “White” is what you might call “artificial” and the ethnic identity, based on where the ancestors of European-Americans came from, is more “organic.” His response was to tell us a story about Stephen Biko, the anti-Apartheid martyr. Apparently when he was in court one day, before the proceedings began, the judge said something about how officially Biko was classified as “Black” but his skin is more of a “chocolate brown.” Biko responded by saying something like “well they call you “White” but you look more pink to me.”

On a minor but slightly relevant note, one day in 2000 when I bumped into Churchill, he greeted me by calling me “Irishman.”  Also, in 2000 he spoke about an upcoming Columbus Day Parade in Denver, sponsored of course by an Italian-American organization. He said something about how an alternative celebration of Italian-America, perhaps centered on pasta, should be organized and he would be thrilled to take part.

When I was taking Intro to Ethnic Studies in 1995, Professor Estevan Flores said that there should be two Ethnic Studies programs (or Departments): The traditional kind and one for Irish-America, Italian-America, German-America, etc.

The most critical quote I can give you about this is something the late black author James Baldwin  said. He said, ”as long as you think you are white, there is no hope for you.”

I don’t know if Davis, Churchill, Flores and the late James Baldwin would (or would have) agree(d) with me about identifying LARGELY as Irish-American and PARTLY as White (instead of the other way around). But I will shortly make a pretty good argument that it makes sense for me to do that. The thing is, I’m not saying that those four people agree with me (or would have agreed with me), although I think there’s a good chance that they would (or would have). I’m just saying that those comments are a big part of what inspired me to identify this way.

************

One miscellaneous argument that I think I’ll put here is that white supremacists seem to identify more as white than as, for example, English-American (yes that’s a joke, I don’t think the WS community is any more English-American than the white population in general). That doesn’t seem to have any positive affect on how offensive their actions and thoughts on race are.

**************

How do I justify identifying more as Irish-American than as White? There are a couple minor things and two big things and they all add up to justifying my stance on this. First the minor things:

1. I am at least slightly interested in Irish culture. For example I listen to a fair amount of Irish republican music.

2. The last thing I want to do is suggest a connection between being Irish and being Catholic (or the other way around), but I was often told when I was young that we were “Irish Catholic” and my religion was fairly important to me as I grew up and still is slightly important to me. That earlier way of talking about it has had some lingering effect on my interest in Irish things.

The first of the two big things is simply my family tree. My paternal grandfather’s family was largely from Ireland and so was my maternal grandfather’s family. My Dad’s mother was partly Irish. On my Mom’s side, her mom was half Irish. Even if it were no more than a large minority of my family tree that’s Irish, I would probably still feel the same way about N. Ireland and would mention the Irish part along with whatever was the biggest part.

The second big thing is my participation in political activity around N. Ireland which largely meant among a chunk of the Irish-American population. I wasn’t involved with the more cultural or social aspects, but I was, in a political way, fairly active. I’ll describe that some more, looking at the first and second incarnations of the independent CU-Boulder group I organized (Students for Justice in N. Ireland (SJNI)) which were 1997-2000 and 2002-2004. (UPDATE 2/12/20 I keep forgetting that although we did almost nothing, the first year SJNI was called the Bobby Sands Association)

(What I said above doesn’t mean that I WANTED it to be mostly Irish-American (you can see this as evidence of that). Although I could have handled it more democratically, in 1999 when a fellow co-chair of SJNI made a flyer for our meetings that referred to us as an “Irish Student Organization” I just said no, as the more senior leader. As much as I wish I had had more of a conversation with him, I was passionately against what he was doing. But, unsurprisingly, at least 80% of the people involved at any point were Irish-American)

To a large degree my active interest in N. Ireland in general contributes greatly to the argument I’m making about my identity. But I’m going to focus more on the 1/2 of my N. Ireland activism that was also anti-racist or anti-homophobic.

I think the first thing we did that was anti-racist (in early 1998) involved organizing a panel discussion about the Good Friday Agreement. We had three white Irish-Americans, and one Irish-American person of color (Glenn Morris, a Poli-Sci professor at the University of Colorado (Denver) and (at least back then) one of the top people in the Colorado American Indian Movement). Inviting Morris was my idea- another progressive activist told me he was very interested in N. Ireland and followed it closely (at the event I learned that Morris is half Irish-American, but I think this still counts). (about 25-50 people showed up)

The next event we did partially on a multi-cultural theme was in Oct. 1998. A few months earlier I had read a book called “Black and Green: The Fight for Civil Rights in Northern Ireland and Black America.” It’s by an Irish man from Britain named Brian Dooley and is about the similarities and connections between the two sets of issues and movements looking back as far as Frederick Douglas and Daniel O’Connell (one chapter is about Irish-America). If you doubt that such connections exist, read that book and/or read this post. We got money from student government to do an event with Brian as the speaker. We did ask the Black Student Alliance to so-sponsor after we got the funding. They readily agreed but that was it. It could be I or SJNI in general screwed up by not involving them more- I’m not sure, but it may have been unavoidably limited to that. It was a one-speaker event plus a movie that I loved showing at events, partly to provide some of the background the speaker might skip over and partly because it’s incredibly inspirational. On one hand, we should have found some way for the BSA to meaningfully contribute beyond their name on the flyer. On the other hand (in my defense and at the very least), IF I had known of a BSA member interested in Ireland, I would have suggested that they introduce Brian (and make whatever comments or announcements that seemed relevant to them). It’s possible it was doomed to be limited and I’m done speculating about things I probably should have done. (I almost forgot that their co-sponsorship, as limited as it turned out to be, MAY have had an effect on the thoughts of some racist or near-racist Irish-American(s) who saw the flyer but didn't attend the event (the apparent and often actual absence of people of color on this issue does nothing to JUSTIFY racism among Irish-Americans, but my theory is that it might PARTLY EXPLAIN it in some cases and when people of color are visible on this issue, that might get racist or semi-racist Irish-Americans who care about NI to re-think their thoughts on race)). (about 75-100 people showed up)

The third thing we did on this theme was that when we brought SF’s Representative in America to speak on campus (in early 1999 and again with student government money) we had her introduced by a Chicano man, Leo Griep-Ruiz. He had, at some point in the late 1990s, a frequent column in the Colorado Daily (then, the main but not official campus paper). At that point he had done two N. Ireland-centered interviews on KGNU community radio and had told me that many Chicana/os don’t see it as a coincidence that Bobby Sands died on  Cinco de Mayo (he was the first to die on a hunger-strike by Irish republican prisoners demanding to be treated as POWs). So, at my suggestion, we had Leo introduce SF’s Representative in America and he spoke on some inter-connected themes for about 15 minutes. (about 75-100 people showed up)

During those years there were two things worth mentioning about homophobia. First, at a 1998 weekly meeting of SJNI, a gay woman asked about how SJNI felt about homophobia. I said that as far as I was concerned it was unacceptable and for better or worse there was no further discussion (I didn’t try to suppress it at all and there was no noticeable drop in attendance at the next meeting).

The second thing was that in 1998 or 1999 I learned of the controversy over the NY City St. Patrick’s Day Parade. There was a boycott of it because LGBTQ+ organization were banned. After the 1999 parade I (as an individual, not a representative of SJNI) wrote a letter-to-the-editor of the Irish News (the main NI paper read by Catholics) criticizing SF for marching in the parade despite the fact that they support gay rights. Although I was appealing to a foreign political party, I was doing so in support of LGBTQ+ Irish-Americans and Irish immigrants.

In the late 1990s I spent a lot of time on an online discussion forum created and moderated by Sinn Fein which was dominated by Irish-Americans. I some times did things comparable to what I just described doing in the previous 7 paragraphs). And I think there were a few other miscellaneous things I can’t think of right now.

In the second incarnation, we did 2-3 things that were anti-racist and one thing that was anti-homophobic.

In Nov. 2002, the Young Democratic Socialists CU-Boulder chapter (which I was also organizing) brought Bill Fletcher Jr. to speak on campus with student government money. He had a massive history of various senior and very senior positions in the labor movement and had spent a few years as a National Co-Chair of the Black Radical Congress (it was a coalition for black people and organizations on the Left). I had learned just by chance that he was interested in N. Ireland and had in the 1980s done a lot of work on the issue. I spoke with people in YDS-CU and SJNI and SJNI organized a panel discussion that he agreed to speak on for free. (about 25 people showed up)

Around the 2003 anniversary of Bloody Sunday, we did a panel discussion that was supposed to include Ward Churchill an American Indian Studies scholar (he’s interested, at least slightly knowledgeable, and could have spoken about the concept of national self-determination) but he didn’t show up. (about 75 people showed up)

In Nov. 2003 we did a panel discussion involving a Black Studies Prof. named George Junne. When we brought Brian Dooley to speak on campus Prof. Junne had Dooley speak in his class. So I asked if he was interested in speaking. He wasn’t familiar with N. Ireland but did know a lot about something fairly relevant, which is the relationship that Black abolitionist Frederick Douglas had with Ireland in the 1800s. So he spoke about that. (about 25 people showed up)

in 2003 or 2004 I also learned that an important anti-racist training I had attended in 2001 was going to be done on campus and encouraged SJNI members to attend.

As far as homophobia goes, we took an important position in support of the boycott of the NY City St. Patrick’s Day Parade. We made copies of our statement and put them out when we tabled at events or in the student center. I had a bunch of anti-homophobic buttons left over from my past involvement with the Young Democratic Socialists and although this may have been questionable, we put the buttons out, too.

With the anti-racist events I had hoped to do two things. The most relevant one is that I hoped our 5-6 efforts might have some effect on eroding racism among a certain section of the Irish-American community (the section that was racist and that also cared about N. Ireland). The less relevant one was to broaden our audience (which would have contributed to accomplishing the first goal) (as far as broadening the audience, I almost organized an event about environmentalism in N. Ireland for the same purpose). I’d say something similar about making the 2003 statement on the NY City St. Patrick’s Day parade.

I think that (in connection to my family tree) what I did trying to promote an anti-racist and anti-homophobic agenda among a large chunk of the Irish-American population while doing N. Ireland activism contributes to justifying my assertion of an identity that is more Irish-American than white.

***************

I would also like to briefly describe my work as a white ally. It’s a different approach to defending my desire to identify largely as Irish-American and still be taken seriously as a white ally; a different approach but one that I think complements the other arguments I’ve made. This is not an exhaustive list, but probably represents about 50% of what I did (most of the other 50% is probably less important and less successful than most of what I write below).

1. In 10th grade my very first bit of activism was when I walked out of my 3rd or 4th period class and joined other students marching around town in protest of the Rodney King verdict (in 1992). That evening I went to a CU-Boulder campus march and rally.

2. In the Fall semester of my freshman year at CU-Boulder I helped with a pro-immigration/immigrants rights event.

3. In the Fall 1995 semester I was one of the main people that organized an event defending Affirmative Action.

4. In the Spring 1996 semester I was a significant part of something similar but much more politically aggressive, and much more successful. It was with a large coalition of students and student groups. The issue was primarily affirmative action but immigration was part of it, too.

5. At the 2000 National Conference of the Young Democratic Socialists I got a statement opposing Columbus Day marches added to a general anti-racism document adopted at the conference (that had originally said nothing about American Indians).

6. In January 2001 I was a small part of organizing one event in Boulder about socialist anti-racism and a massive part of organizing another event on the same topic in Denver.

7. In February of 2002 I represented the Anti-Racism Commission of the Democratic Socialists of America at the National Conference of Sinn Fein Youth in Galway, Ireland (I publicly encouraged SF to reach out to people of color in America more).


I did some miscellaneous activities that I want to briefly mention (that are in the less important 50% I referred to above): tabling in the student center with some anti-racist materials; and joining what might be called “mass meetings” by students because of concerns about diversity and equality on campus; In the late 1990s I attended at least three protests or rallies in Denver about police brutality, and around the same time I attended about 5-6 actions or marches in Denver in support of Justice for Janitors. Around 2015 I went to two protest marches in support of Black Lives Matter.

For many reasons, including that it seems appropriate after listing a lot of the GOOD things I did as a white ally, I would like to briefly say some things about the biggest mistake I made as a white ally. There’s probably 5-10 other mistakes that are all much smaller than what I’ll describe in a moment (for example, what I wrote above about the Brian Dooley event and the involvement of the BSA).

In 2000 there was a Columbus Day Parade in Denver and a massive protest against it. I think it was organized more or less by CO-AIM and especially by Glenn Morris. During the early part of the protest I decided, without thinking of it in depth earlier, that I was willing to get arrested for sitting down in the road blocking the parade (it was non-violet civil disobedience). I actually asked Ward Churchill right before I was arrested how much trouble we would get in- years later I realized that sitting down and getting arrested was a big mistake. I am lucky in some or perhaps many ways and my Dad was a lawyer back then. He barely touched criminal law but offered to sort of be my lawyer in this case. At almost the exact same time he said he had heard some rumor that we were all going to go to jail. This was four months after my mom was killed in a car accident, and I think I was reluctant to get into an argument with my Dad- even more of a problem, I really didn’t want to be in Denver County Jail with all that emotional baggage. I took his advice and separated myself from the others in the court system and pleaded guilty to 1-2 minor charges and was not even put on probation (not long after that, the charges against the others were dropped). This is embarrassing and sounds lame, but I just went brain dead and didn’t consider how fucked up what I did was, not until about early 2013.

It might not sound horrible to many progressives, but it is, as you’ll soon agree. The argument in favor of blocking the parade is something like this- the parade is close enough to advocating genocide that it’s illegal under international law and therefore we were enforcing International law. In the early 1990s a Denver jury agreed with people who did the same thing back then. Me pleading guilty to two things was a problem.

****************

Another reason I felt comfortable blocking the parade is that I supported efforts to keep anti-Catholic Orange Order parades out of Catholic areas in N. Ireland (in the Summer of 2002 I was in two riots (with the security forces) in west Belfast triggered by such marches (in 2002 such rioting was popular in the nationalist community)). Although some would argue that downtown Denver is not an American Indian area, this whole continent used to be theirs, AND, what the Columbus Day parade stands for is worse. The worst the Orange parades stand for is what happened as a result of British policy before and during the Famine. 10-15% of the population died and and 10-15% emigrated otherwise they would have died. On page 31 of his 1995 book, “Since Predator Came” Ward Churchill writes about the results of European and European-American settlement in the area that is the United States and writes: “by 1890, fewer than 250,000 Indians remained alive within the United States, a degree of decimation extending into the upper 90th percentile.”

****************

Overall I’m not sure how much damage I did- maybe none, but if Glenn Morris were to tell me that I undermined the cause a lot I would feel bad. But they WERE able to say that X, not X minus 1, people were arrested. I got the Colorado Democratic Socialists of America to endorse the protest and as a leader of that group I did a little bit of publicity for the protest (we made some flyers for the CU-Boulder campus and we made it clear that CO-DSA were just helping a tiny bit with spreading the word). I also had done a handful of other things as an ally of Indians specifically (including getting a statement on Columbus Day into the YDS document I referred to above).

For whatever it’s worth, I prefer to end by repeating what I said above- I made a big mistake by sitting down to get arrested at that point in my life and I also want to apologize- in general and to Glenn Morris (I  have apologized by email but haven't heard back).

***********

Besides a brief conclusion this is the last component.

In 9th grade (90/91), 1-4 years before I was a progressive, I became kind of a supporter of the IRA, vaguely in connection with my religion and family tree and in connection with a good friend of my mom’s who was an IRA supporter. I was probably the least educated about the conflict among American supporters of the IRA and did practically nothing about it. That changed in early 1997. I had been a socialist and very active anti-racist for about two and 1/2 years at that point. That passion for justice is part of why it changed then.

I know this will, at least initially, sound like I’m a bad white ally, but even today my identity (Irish-American and Catholic) does play a significant role in my decision to focus more on that issue than most other issues (when you look at the years 1997-2001 and 1997-2004 or 1997-today).

Here are some of the reasons why I think American progressives should do work on this issue:

1. The Catholic community in N. Ireland experienced high levels of inequality in the first 50 years of NI ’s existence (for more on that see this (describes the undemocratic and sectarian creation of N. Ireland, the inequality Catholics experienced, and how the Troubles began)). Around 1970 the situation transformed. Although there were fewer laws that could be compared to Jim Crow, job discrimination continued or got worse (in 1971 Catholics were twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants and in 1988 they were TWO AND A HALF times more likely to be unemployed as Protestants) repression got worse, and violence against the Catholic population skyrocketed like you wouldn’t believe. During the Troubles (roughly 1969-2005) they went through a nightmare. 856+ Catholic civilians were killed in the years 1969 to 2005 by either loyalist paramilitaries or the security forces (a comparable scenario in America would have meant around 67,000 unarmed people of color killed by cops or Nazi skinheads (etc.) in the same time period). (A: based on what I’ll describe below, I would guess that the actual number for that was probably somewhere around 7,000-8,000; B: I'm not saying the racist system in this country wasn't, ideologically or programmatically, capable of killing 67,000 people of color in those years if the "rebellion" among people of color here had been as militaristic as the one among Catholics in N. Ireland; but the reality is that as bad as it was for people of color here in those years, it was, in terms of deaths, MUCH worse for Catholics in N. Ireland). Between 1975 and 1998, with practically zero influence on law and policy beyond local government, they were ruled by a state they quite reasonably saw as both foreign and hostile.

2. The government most responsible for that nightmare (see this) is the most important ally of the US government in the entire world (in addition to some other relevant info, that post exposes the fact that the British were no more concerned by the sectarian slaughter of Catholic civilians (by organizations that did little else) than they were concerned by IRA attacks that almost never resulted in civilian death). I realize that we are not propping them up like we do with Israel, but who helped us patrol the “No Fly” zones over Iraq 1991-2003?; who contributed something like 20% of the military forces for the invasion of Iraq? And who made a similar contribution during the occupation of Iraq? I believe that the British have a problem- an Ireland problem, or an imperialism problem or whatever you would call it. They need an intervention and you get friends, not enemies or strangers for interventions. The US needs to convince the British to begin, ASAP, a decades-long process of getting out of Ireland.

3. It gives us a chance to do something important that won’t require hardly any extra effort beyond what we should be doing on N. Ireland anyway. The more people of color and visibly anti-racist white people get involved (at least to a small degree), the more we erode racism among a large chunk of Irish-Americans (I’m not saying that the apparent and often actual absence of people of color justifies that racism, but I think it partly explains it). Although I haven’t heard of a specific example of it happening, I believe it can and does happen. A friend of mine with a BA in Sociology, a BA in Psychology, and a Masters in Social Work (from Denver University (which means that she must have gotten good grades in her Psychology and Sociology classes) agrees with me.

(admittedly, the last 15 years or so the situation has improved greatly in terms of overall violence and inequality for Catholics. But Catholics still don’t experience anywhere near total equality, and I would say we should wait for 10 years of that before we talk seriously about it not being a problem anymore. Also, for 3 years until Jan. 2020 there was a pretty serious crisis in the peace process, there are still republican paramilitaries active, loyalist paramilitaries are still active, the British are not owning up fully to what they did during the conflict. Basically, even if there’s not much opportunity or need to do much now, at the very least progressives should educate themselves a little so that if things DO go downhill and they want to get involved to some degree, they’ll have already started educating themselves. I recommend Michael Farrell’s “Northern Ireland: The Orange State.”) (UPDATE 11/7/20 See this for relatively recent developments in the Peace Process (it might soon come to a halt))


I think that the 2nd-to last thing I need to say in defense of WHY I am so interested in N. Ireland is to refer to Prof. Angela Y. Davis. First, as I mentioned earlier, she does encourage white allies to do something with their ethnic identity (I think something like explore and/or assert). She also feels very strongly about the need for Black people to take N. Ireland seriously as an issue. Specifically, in 1994 (I think; and on a tape of a lecture she gave at a Black Studies conference), she compared African-Americans who are unconcerned about NI with those who are pro-life, homophobic, or anti-union. A slightly different version of this is found online here, in a paragraph towards the top that starts with the word "beware."

You combine these two thoughts and I can’t imagine her having a problem with Irish-American white allies working on the North partly because of their ethnicity.

Lastly, if American progressives have a problem with me doing this, I have to ask how they feel about Jewish-Americans being very interested in Israel and/or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Even if we set aside the fact that I’m supporting the oppressed and the Jewish-Americans we are talking about are probably more likely to be pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, why is it okay for them, but not me, to be very interested in politics that are relevant to them/me because of their/my religion and/or ethnicity? Some would say that Jewish-Americans are oppressed and neither Catholics nor the Irish (in America) are. Are they really OPPRESSED? I have a bad history with this question, but let me just briefly say that even in the last 6 years during which we saw 14 Jewish people killed because they were Jewish, they are not oppressed (my timing could be much better and I might sound insensitive, but A) I am not going post-pone this post any longer, and B) although this doesn’t mean I am above criticism as a Christian ally, I think it’s reasonable for me to point out that a lot of the material on my blog is against anti-Semitism). What about widespread police brutality? Mass incarceration? Disproportionate unemployment? Jim Crow-type laws? A low rate of educational success? Where am I getting this? I’m not going to offer a flurry of sources, statistics or quotes. I doubt anyone will seriously say I’m wrong on the relatively specific points I just made. I have been observing American politics a lot the last 25 years. During that time I have probably read an average of 3000 words a day about America in different articles or books. It’s also relevant that while getting my BA in Ethnic Studies, I don’t think anyone ever said something like “that also happens a lot with Jewish-Americans.” (UPDATE 3/28/20 this is discussed further here)

***************

In conclusion, I believe that there is nothing about identifying mostly as Irish-American and partly as white that’s at all inherently in conflict with being a white ally. Although I haven’t said much about this because I think it might require more of the sociological training I clearly lack, I think that what I’ve written in some parts of this essay implies that it might even be BETTER if white allies would have some sense of their ethnic identity and maybe take it as far as I do when that makes sense (on the other hand Northern France doesn’t exist, and certainly isn’t occupied by anyone). Although this doesn’t require taking it as far as I do, identifying as Irish-American has given me another opportunity to do stuff that had the potential of lessening the racism (and homophobia) in this society. Also, ethnic pride among European-Americans (for example, Irish-American pride) is (in general) to one degree or another much less offensive than white pride. I’m not saying it’s crucial for the equality-based, multi-cultural society we want to build, but it can’t hurt either, for white people to have some degree of pride as, for example, Greek-American (as an alternative to white pride).

(UPDATE 4/30/20 Somewhere here I need to say something. Even if 99% of Irish-Americans were racists, it wouldn't be because they're Irish-American. If that were the case, no other white people would be racist. I could go through a list of all the other European-American ethnic groups and say the same thing. And with Irish-Americans, look at the colonial history of Ireland and how anti-racist the Nationalist community in N. Ireland is, and how abolitionist the Nationalist population in Ireland as a whole was in relation to America. Those white people who are racist are racist because they're white and various sociological and psychological and political factors HERE have contributed to them being racist)

*********

What makes me confident about my statement “probably somewhere around 7,000-8,000”?

1. Between 1996 and 2005 according to the FBI there were 38 racist murders. I have read that the Department of Justice officially estimates that for every hate crime reported to the FBI there might be 20-30 that aren’t reported because not all local law enforcement agencies report such crimes to the FBI. So I came up with 1,140 for those years.
2. I heard (from organizers of a Black Lives Matter protest) that in a 12 month period during a 2014 (apparent) surge in police murders of black people including those of Eric Garner in NY, Tamir Rice in OH, and Michael Brown in MO among other highly publicized such cases, that around 200 black people armed or unarmed, had been killed by cops in America. Although I’m very open-minded about accusations that cops plant guns, this country also has a ridiculous number of guns.
3. Bear in mind that decades ago the number of people of color and the number of cops in this country were both smaller or much smaller than they are today.
4. If it’s worth much, about 10 years ago I read a huge amount of what the Southern Poverty Law Center put on their web-site in the previous 10-15 years. I also got an Ethnic Studies degree if that’s worth much.
5. There was little or no talk about “Brown Lives Matter” so I get the impression that very few Latinos/Latinas/Chicanos/Chicanas have been killed by cops in recent years (as far as I know, even Arpaio’s sheriff’s department in AZ didn’t kill a single such person) and that might reflect the situation in earlier decades. I have practically never heard of Asian-Americans being killed by cops. And if Native Americans were being killed at a high rate in the 80s and 90s I would have heard (a massive chunk of my major was Native American Studies).

UPDATE 6/9/21 I just found a Democracy Now! story relevant to this. It's about the last 20 years, but there's a small overlap between that and the period I was looking at Catholics and people of color (1969-2005), and it's possible that what I said about this comparison is off a little. Bear in mind that the figure I refer to in item #2 above came from organizers of a Black Lives Matter protest.

Trump, Evangelicals, Israel, and anti-semitism

Supporters of the Palestinians are are often accused of being anti-semitic. To whatever degree there are right-wing supporters of the Palestinians, and there are, yes, they most certainly are anti-semitic. Their hatred of Jews is apparently greater than their hatred  of Muslims.

When it comes to progressive supporters of the Palestinians, it’s more complicated. Yes, even as a supporter of the Palestinians, I readily admit there is some anti-Semitism. There is ignorance of the large minority of Jewish-Americans who support the Palestinians. There is a ridiculously flawed understanding of how much power Jewish-Americans have over foreign policy. There is tolerance for attacks aimed at intentionally killing civilians.

But in my experience most progressive supporters of the Palestinians are not anti-semitic. Many are Jewish.

*************

At some point I need to say that the post on my blog that are at least partly about anti-semitism can be found here.

Overlapping with that are my posts partly or entirely about the Palestinians. Those are here. The most relevant one is here. As far as information about the Palestinians that I agree with, there’s always between one and many articles to read on Juan Cole’s blog, just scroll down if you want more. If you want a MUCH more frequently updated and less partisan but only slightly pro-Israel source, see The Times of Israel.

******************

What about American supporters of Israel? There’s some leftists and the liberal and moderate Democrats who support Israel, but their numbers are declining. A majority of people who support Israel are Republicans. As I’ll explaIn, the idea that these people are motivated by opposition to anti-Semitism is ridiculous.

All of them, including a small number who are atheists, support Israel because they were our ally during the Cold War and they mistakenly believe that Israel is a helpful ally in the War on Terror.

The ones who are evangelical Protestants (and according to the Pew research Center, in 2014 45% of registered voters who are republican or lean republican are evangelical) believe that Jewish control of that part of the middle-east will bring about the second coming of Christ. According to the PRC:

“In a July 2003 Pew survey, fully 44% of Americans expressed their belief that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people. In a Pew survey a year ago in August 2005, 22% of Americans said that their religious beliefs were the biggest influence in determining their support for the Jewish state.”


About half of evangelicals also believe in something called the rapture. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “The Rapture, in Christianity, the eschatological (concerned with the last things and Endtime) belief that both living and dead believers will ascend into heaven to meet Jesus Christ at the Second Coming (Parousia).” (I’m Catholic and not very familiar with such things). Jews will either become christians or will perish, according to about half of evangelicals.

UPDATE 2/9/20 there are polls indicating minorities (small and large) of evangelicals are liberal on some issues. I'd be surprised if they are among the ones who believe in the Rapture and I'd be surprised if these Evangelicals with liberal tendencies vote Republican all the time. It might be safe to say that the vast majority of Evangelicals who consistently vote republican believe in the Rapture.

As I said, I’m Catholic and not familiar with theology, but I believe that we all go to the same heaven (well, out of respect for the beliefs of people who are neither Christian, Muslim nor Jewish, maybe just Muslims, Jews and Christians (I'd probably add the Druze to this)). If the Rapture is going to happen, in my version the Jews will ascend as well.

Although I couldn’t find the poll I found 10 years ago on the PRC site about the idea that Jews killed Christ I wouldn’t be surprised if many Republicans believe that they did.

In N. Ireland in the last 20 years support for the Palestinians in the Nationalist (Catholic) community has blossomed so much that when the Irish flag is displayed it is often accompanied by Palestinian flags and some times it is temporarily replaced by the Palestinian flag. In response to this and perhaps in solidarity with fellow bigoted settlers, often Israeli flags have been seen the Unionist (Protestant) community. At least some of those Israeli flags were erected by the Ulster Defense Association, a group that has often welcomed visiting British Nazi skinheads. In fact at one point they had to temporarily take down the Israeli flags before such a visit (in all fairness they didn't replace them with the Nazi flag, but they WERE flying the Union Jack in British-occupied Ireland, which is almost as bad).

Although this might arguably have more to do with racism than anti-semitism, Trump has often been, at least averse to conflict with the far-right. Eve if it IS just racism, if he were the friend of the Jewish people some like to say he is, he would have immediately and forcefully disavowed David Duke's support when he first heard about it (in all fairness, Trump's response in an interview was:

Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don't know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. I don’t know, did he endorse me or what’s going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.

As I said, he's not a passionate opponent of anti-Semitism unless it involves American foreign policy and fucking over a mostly Muslim population. He also displayed this lack of passion after the murder of an anti-fascist protester by fascists in Charlottesville- a woman was killed and he couldn't rouse enough passion to simply condemn those responsible (his first response failed to do that and in general  his responses leaned towards favoring the fascists)- apparrently his racism is more important to him than his opposition to anti-Semitism.

UPDATE 2/24/20 In 2016 Trump gave a speech that was pretty easy to interpret as anti-semitic. There is an article about it here. As far as I can tell, JTA is a good source, not sure to what small or slight degree it's pro-Israel or how liberal it is. It seems pretty professional and only slightly pro-Israel and maybe a little liberal.
UPDATE 2/24/20 According to this, Trump gets along with the leader of Hungry, Victor Orban. This discusses Orban's treatment of Jews. The article says that Orban claims Jewish philanthropist George Soros is supporting illegal immigration into Hungry. A senior leader of the Jewish community in Hungry sort of defends Orban but crucially says that he doesn't believe the conspiracy theory against Soros. If this man is right and Soros is innocent, why does Orban (very publicly) make the accusation? I think it's because of anti-Semitsm. Also the organization of Orban's Jewish defender is heavily supported by the government- admittedly that might erode what I'm saying, but not necessarily. MANY bigots are simply not consisent (i.e. I've heard of Nazi skinheads eating Thai food, and when a Chinese politician in N. Ireland accused an element of the Orange Order of being racist towards the Chinese community there, those accused responded by claiming (probably honestly) that they love Chinese food) and it's not irrelevant that the Nazis used a small but significant number of Jews as collaborators just before and during the Final Solution). Lastly, at least some Jewish leaders in Hungry ARE greatly concerned about Orban. Orban probably IS an anti-Semite.

UPDATE 2/2/8/20 On a related note, a poll recently found that any of the Democratic presidential candidates would beat Trump 2-1 among Jewish-Americans and that includes anti-AIPAC Jew Sanders and anti-AIPAC non-Jew Warren. There is also information about how American Jews feel about Trump's Israel policy, which dents the idea that he is supporting Israel the extreme way he is because Jewish-Americans want him to.

UPDATE 3/9/20 There's an article about anti-Semitism at Fox News.

UPDATE 6/17/20 There's an article here about a senior GOP politician pushing an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about liberal Jewish billionaire philanthropist George Soros controlling the Dems. UPDATE 2/4/21 An article here contains (towards the bottom) news about her promoting another anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

UPDATE 7/8/21 An article about Taylor Greene TWICE comparing anti-COVID-19 efforts with what Nazi Germany did.

UPDATE 9/18/20 Trump spoke to Jewish-Americans as if Israel and not America was their country. 

UPDATE 7/8/21 An article here contains an accusation that Trump spoke positively about Hitler.

UPDATE 2/27/22 An article here about two GOP congresspeople attending an event organized by an anti-Semite.

UPDATE 11/26/22 An article about Trump associating with anti-Semites.

UPDATE 9/19/23 An article about Trump making anti-Semitic statements.

UPDATE 9/14/24 An article here is about an apparent dirty-tricks GOP operation aimed at discouraging critics of Israel from voting for Harris- partly because her husband is Jewish. Although I'm not sure they are necessarily anti-Semites, what they are doing can easily result in more anti-Semitism in this society.

UPDATE 9/18/24 There is an AMAZING article here suggesting that JD Vance is pretty soft on anti-Semitism in the GOP.

UPDATE 9/21/24 And article about Tucker Carlson and Holocaust revisionism ("revisionism" is the term used, and might be a little more accurate than "denial" but "denial" also works pretty well).

UPDATE 10/11/25 An article about Jewish-American groups moderately criticizing Trump for saying something anti-Semitic.

UPDATE 10/27/25 An article about how the Trump administration A) has nominated for an important government job a man widely seen as an anti-Semite and B) has, in pursuit of that effort, misrepresented the positions on the issue of between one and four powerful Jewish and/or Israeli organizations. Apparently if Jewish people might be involved, the Administration just says organizations support their likely-bigoted nominee even when that is not the case.

UPDATE 6/13/26 An article about anti-Semitism in the GOP- I feel safe assuming that most of these people are at least sort of pro-Israel.

********

UPDATE 2/11/20

I missed something about two months ago when Trump signed an Executive Order about anti-Semitism on American college campuses. I'm not saying the idea in general is a horrible one- whether it comes from the right or the left, there is anti-Semitism. But on campuses I'm sure almost everyone who is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as anti-Semitic is a progressive and/or Arab and/or Muslim supporter of the Palestinians, and Trump knows that. According to an article here, even some of the Jewish students who complain about anti-Semitism aren't happy about it, and that includes supporters of Israel. Another article here explains that even the anti-Semitism expert who developed the definition it uses isn't happy with it on free speech grounds.

Some of the elements of the definition of anti-Semitism used are:

“holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” That IS anti-Semitic.

“denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” I'm not sure they have a right to self-determination and certainly not one that trumps that of the Palestinians who have a better claim to that area, and it IS kind of a racist endeavor (in about a week or two I should have a post done which will explain why I doubt they have a right to self-determination, as well as related issues (UPDATE 3/8/20 That post is here) (for more about self-determination, see the bottom of this post)).

“and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” Such comparisons are not absolute bullshit but they're close. And on a similar topic, if I got pissed off and called a Jewish person a Nazi the way I MIGHT call anyone a Nazi when I'm pissed off, I would apologize immediately.

"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations." This is also anti-semitic. 

(I got the four items above from the second article and from the State Department page about a definition of anti-semitism)

There is a European Union body that has said using the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" is anti-semitic. I deal with that here.

As the second article says, it is about suppressing pro-Palestinian speech, and as I said Trump knows that on college campuses criticism of Israel overwhelmingly or exclusively comes from people who are progressive and/or Arab and/or Muslim.

*******

UPDATE 2/21/20 In an article here, I learned that Trump's ambassador to Germany (Richard Grenell) has expressed great fondness for a conservative Austrian political party in coalition government with a far-right party. Although beyond that the article is a little vague (I don't know exactly what parties he's talking about or exactly what they're like), he has expressed enthusiasm for insurgent "conservative" (right-wing) parties in Europe. In an article here, it says: 

"The president lashes out frequently at Germany and Merkel, whose defense of liberal democratic values has turned her into a favorite target of the Republican right. Grenell, since arriving in Berlin in May of last year, has doubled down on Trump’s criticisms via tweets and interviews with sympathetic news outlets, seeming to relish the opportunity to translate the trollish ethos of Trumpism into international diplomacy."

Merkel is the leader of a center/center-right party, not a progressive or anything like that. 

Trump just recently made Grenell acting  Director of National Intelligence, the highest official in the intelligence community despite the fact that he has never worked for an intelligence agency or the military, has no experience as an elected politician and has almost no significant experience in the State Department. Trump really likes him.

UPDATE 2/28/20 The Austrian Parliament, including the far-right party I referred to above, passed a measure condemning Israel-related anti-Semitism. It briefly referred to anti-Semitism in general but was focused on the kind about Israel. I think this is similar to what I wrote about Trump and college campuses. 

**********

UPDATE 2/21/20

I want to briefly explain something I mentioned above. My doubt that the Jewish population has a right to self-determination. I AM going to write a post about that and a lot of related things but I have only done some of the research for it and it won't be completed for about 2 more months (UPDATE 3/8/20 That post is here).

The Jewish people are not a nation. Religious groups don't have a right to self-determination (Catholics globally and in Ireland don't). In America, being Jewish is a religious and/or ethnic identity and ethnic groups don't have a right to self-determination (Irish-Americans don't have a right to self-determination). Even with a large concentration in Israel, Jews are a diaspora, and that was even more true in 1948. The Irish diaspora does not have a right to self-determination. The Irish on that island do, but not the diaspora.

UPDATE 2/28/20 IF (and it might be a huge if) anyone says that the Jews are a race and therefore they have a right to self-determination, here's my response: A) No, races don't have a right to self-determination (does the white race have a right to self-determination?); B) The Nazis certainly thought Jews were a race, and C) are such hypothetical supporters of Israel saying that Israel is a racial state?

UPDATE 3/2/20 If the definition I discuss above is referring to Jewish-Israelis as having a right to self-determination, settlers and their descendants don't have that right- white people in America don't, Unionists in N. Ireland don't, Protestants there don't.

*********

Who are the real anti-Semites?

Babylon 5 Reviews M

Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.

Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it goes further than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.


**Season 5 episode 7 “Secrets of the Soul”** See this for a plot summary.

There is one small political issue and one pretty large one.

First, Dr. Franklin says, for the third time, that he will not be involved in biogenetic warfare and this time promises representatives of an alien race who are giving him their people’s medical information (probably the biology, chemistry, etc. and epidemiology) that he would rather die than be involved in that sort of thing.

While reviewing that information he learns that there were two races (the Hyach who are known to Earth and the Hyach-Doh who are buried in history) on their home planet in a case of “parallel evolution.” He is accosted by one of the Hyach intent on maintaining a cover-up of what happened to the other race. He learns that at one point centuries ago they briefly co-existed and there was inter-marriage. Then Hyach religious forces had that designated as immoral, which changed to illegal, and then became punishable by death. After that the Hyach spent centuries successfully pursuing a policy of extermination. This included bounties on the heads of the Hyach-Doh and a severe ban on anyone helping them leave the planet. The former reminds me of what happened to American Indians, and the latter goes further than what the Nazis initially did (for some period of time in the 30s German Jews could leave).

Dr. Franklin then learns that the race that continued (the Hyach) is numerically declining and that it’s doing so because they needed the inter-breeding with the other race (the Hyach-Doh) for biological or genetic reasons.

There is a powerful exchange between the Dr. and a Hyach who seems RELATIVELY willing to deal with the truth:

Hyach: We are a dying people unless you help us.

Dr. Franklin: No.

Hyach: You hold us responsible for those who were killed.

Dr. Franklin: Yes.

Hyach: Even though we ourselves were not yet born?

Dr. Franklin: You helped hide the truth about what happened by revising your history, cutting out the parts you didn’t like. Now as far as I‘m concerned that makes you an accomplice after the fact.


The one quoted above asks for forgiveness and Dr. Franklin says only the Hyach-Doh can do that, but they’re all dead.



**Season 5 Episode 8 “Day of the Dead”** For a plot summary see this.

There’s one tiny comment I need to make about this. This episode was made about 20 years ago and I think that back then this mistake I need to highlight was fairly common and today probably everyone against bigotry already knows what I’m going to say. But when discussing diversity and inclusion using the word “tolerance” is very inappropriate. It suggests something is wrong with, for example, the religion being discussed. So it was disappointing that the Captain of B5 used that word in connection with religion.


**Season 5 Episode 9 “In the Kingdom of the Blind”** See this for a plot summary.

There is one brief bit of politics. The Interstellar Alliance gets one of it’s member races to agree to not block the independence of a planet near them (although it’s not stated explicitly, the seperatists were probably governed by the IA member). That was in exchange for the IA agreeing to intercede in all border disputes there for the next 20 years. I imagine something like that might be helpful somewhere on Earth in reality- possibly with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, possibly with other international conflicts.



**Season 5 Episode 10 “A Tragedy of Telepaths”** See this for a plot summary.

There's only one political issue in this episode. Evidence is discovered indicating that recent attacks on shipping by Interstellar Alliance races may be carried out by OTHER members of the IA. There is some degree of escalation of threats and military deployments between three different IA races. Then Sheridan deploys Ranger White Star military vessels and threatens to attack anyone seen attacking the military of fellow IA races. Apparently it’s allowed by the constitution of the IA and it’s not a horrible idea but I’m not sure it’s a good idea.


**Season 5 Episode 20 “Objects in Motion”** See this for a plot summary.

There are two brief things about Mars that are worth mentioning. First, looking at the time when Mars was controlled by Earth, accusations are made about what Earth was doing with it’s colony: a vague reference to “exploitation” and a more specific reference to strip mining. Those accusations are the sort of things I had been hoping to hear about Earth's rule of Mars.

The other political thing is that Earth is using bureaucracy, especially about finance, to control Mars as it tries to realize independence- it’s basically neo-colonialism. Th Interstellar Alliance offers to help Mars get financial independence from Earth.

Babylon 5 Reviews L

Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.

Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it goes further than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.


**Season 5, Episode 1 “No Compromises”** See this for a plot summary.

This is partly about the inauguration of the President of the Interstellar Alliance. G’Kar reads the Declaration of Principles (which he wrote). He talks about freedom and inclusiveness and the right to pursue reforms within the IA (and probably member worlds as well).

When he has Sheridan place his hand on what in America would usually be the Bible, he uses a  book that is a compilation of the first page of every holy book of every race that has joined the Alliance. Although in the Declaration of Principles he DOES mention the inclusion of atheists, I’m still not totally in favor of using ONLY holy books in the swearing-in ceremony. But if I ignore that, what he did with that compilation is pretty cool.


**Season 5 Episode 3 “The Paragon of Animals”** See this for a plot summary.

A big part of this episode is about how to build the Interstellar Alliance (it’s pretty obvious the writers were inspired by Star Trek). Sheridan and most of the other main characters want members to sign a Declaration of Principles but for various reasons that have nothing to do with the substance of it, they refuse. Garibaldi, who sort of comes out as more right-wing than left-wing, says that some use of force is needed first to demonstrate what the IA can do. Sheridan is reluctant but soon finds himself needing to do it as a situation develops with a race that want membership in the IA. It turns out that the victimizers of the planet are aligned with a de facto member of the IA and Sheridan uses this (as well as successful martial and political maneuvering in the crisis) to convince the others that signing the Declaration of Principles is necessary. Setting aside for a moment how things worked out, I largely disagree with Garibaldi. Sheridan shouldn’t have been pressured to find a fight in order to get the Declaration signed. If an opportunity to fight in that situation doesn’t present itself, you shouldn’t go looking for one (at the very least because you can be accused of CREATING a crisis for your benefit politically) and starting out with principles by itself isn’t that bad.


**Season 5, Episode 4 “A View From the Gallery”** See this for a plot summary.

In general this is supposed to be from the viewpoint of B5’s working-class, but it doesn’t say much about life for workers in a capitalist system- for example, although B5 is a pro-union show, it doesn’t say anything about unions. That part of the episode is not a waste of time, it just could have been a little more political.

The main political thing is a brief discussion of how, in war, captured enemy wounded should be treated. Dr. Franklin strongly advocates for treating them as well as possible- that is, as well as friendly wounded should be treated. Although I can imagine supporting a war against an enemy state or organization I hate, their captured wounded should be treated well. It’s the right thing to do, and might affect how the enemy treats captured wounded soldiers. (on a related point, I DO accept that in some cases prisoners can't be taken and they have to be killed (i.e. units that are behind enemy lines, or the IRA in N. Ireland), but it really should be the norm).

** Season 5 Episode 5 “Learning Curve”** For a plot summary see this.

There are 2-3 political items in this episode.

First, some stuff about diversity. The Interstellar Alliance’s military component, the Rangers, were traditionally just minbari and humans but are now allowing members of other races to join. The lone representative of the Pak’ma'ra seems to be without potential because of certain characteristics of that race. But Delenn realizes those characteristics can be useful in certain jobs that Rangers do. She says something about how they can learn from humans and how we benefit from diversity (I'm not sure what she means exactly, but I think it might be at worst a flawed statement in favor of diversity).

Second is the legacy of the Earth Civil War. The new captain (largely) in charge of B5 was on the government’s side and clashes with Garibaldi. She says that, unlike the anti-government side, she didn’t believe in firing on her own ships- as if it was just those led by Sheridan who did that. It’s not clear to me who started the shooting but I watched some of two earlier episodes and it seems like it was the government (there were also two episodes where anti-government ships were reluctant to attack government ships until they had to). Captain Lochely also talks about how the military doesn’t create policy and how she believes in the chain of command, and how her opponents tore up the constitution. But, even if there was some reasonable doubt concerning the allegation that the President had his predecessor killed so he could replace him, there is no doubt that he dissolved the Senate and earlier was eroding democracy through the McCarthyist Night Watch organization.

Babylon 5 Reviews K

Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.

Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it goes further than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.


**Season 4, Episode 18 “Intersections in Real Time”** See this for a plot summary.

At the end of the last episode, Sheridan is captured by Earth forces. This episode is entirely about him being questioned. They aren’t looking for information, but for a false confession that crucially includes him admitting to being led by aliens. Most of what the interrogator does is not torture (very little physical torture and none of the sort of non-violent torture that was also used at Abu Ghraib in Iraq). A good example of what his interrogator does is ask him first if he’s "controlled" by “outsiders” and then, before Sheridan answers, asks if he’s "influenced" by “others.” Sheridan says no, clearly (in my opinion) not noticing the difference between the two questions and/or thinking of the first question. But the interrogator then says that EVERYONE is influenced by others and Sheridan must be lying. Of course if Sherdian had said yes either at first or after being called a liar, the Earth gov’t would have taken that (recorded answer) as an answer to the first question.


**Season 4, Episode 19 “Between the Darkness and the Light”** see this for a plot summary.

There’s about five minutes that continue with an attempt to get Sheridan to say that the rebellion he led was really an alien conspiracy. About half-way through the episode he’s freed by Garibaldi, Franklin, and Lyta.

One other thing worth mentioning is that the Narn, the Centauri, and the League of Non-Aligned Worlds agree to militarily support Sheridan (more, apparently, than they already were). G’Kar says that since the Shadow war they “have begun working together as never before. In the past we had nothing in common but now the humans have become the glue that holds us together.”

On one hand it seems like the beginning of what we see very shortly at the end of the 4th season, which is the creation of something sort of comparable to Star Trek’s "the Federation." On the other hand, I don’t like the Earth-centric nature of these developments.


**Season 4, Episode 21 “Rising Star”** See this for a plot summary.

There are at least two political things in this episode.

First, the acting President of Earth says that Sheridan did the right thing the “wrong way.” That doesn’t make much sense. In his position, I’m not sure what else he could have done. I’m not saying that armed rebellion is the only way to deal with a dictatorship. There is always the option of mass struggle- getting people in the street, or sitting down in protest, etc. But, according to the acting President of Earth, dissidents on that planet felt like they couldn’t do anything. How could Sheridan have contributed to a non-violent resistance on Earth while in command of B5? He could have used non-violent methods ON B5 without breaking from Earth, but it seems to me that breaking away was more effective. It must have been more visible and inspirational to the rest of the Earth Alliance population than marches or non-violent civil disobedience on B5 (without breaking from Earth as they did (and which could have been more easily covered up in the media than what they actually did)).

The first battle with forces loyal to the President was kind of defensive in nature. I think that, considering there were other parts of the Earth Force that broke with the Earth gov’t, Sheridan, would have been doing the wrong thing if he had abandoned them. Then, the most immediate cause of him going on the offensive was the slaughter of civilians by Earth Force ships under orders from the President.

This reminds me of N. Ireland and the Provisional IRA’s campaign. I defend it in many places on this blog, but perhaps the two main things you should read are here and here. It would be kind of reasonable of people who disagree with me about this to point to the years where the PIRA’s campaign overlapped with the last 2-3 years of the Civil Rights Movement (1970-72) and say that the PIRA should have been on cease-fire during that time. First, as far as I can tell there was probably a majority and maybe a LARGE majority of members and supporters of the Provisional Republican Movement (what we call in recent decades, Sinn Fein and the IRA) that DID participate in the CRM. And during those years, even the Official IRA (the other side of the split that produced the Provisionals and the side which was fully in support of the CRM) was waging an armed campaign of some significance.

The Officials went on cease-fire in 1972 (not long after the CRM was kind of displaced by the PIRA’s campaign as the dominant answer to unionism and British imperialism) and have remained there since (well, until some time in the 1980s their cease-fire wasn't totally solid in different ways but it was close). I haven’t heard of the Officials organizing any large-scale protests and/or marches as a replacement for armed struggle, and they had the support of about 4% of the nationalist community in the 1970s and that went down further in the 80s and 90s. They were pretty irrelevant as an example of a better form of resistance.

The SDLP was getting a large chunk of the Nationalist vote. When looking at the 70s (when PSF wasn’t running candidates) and thinking about how much support they had in the Nationalist community, it seems unavoidable and reasonable to assume that they had the same level of support that they had in the 80s and 90s, which would have been about 60% (this is based partly on voting figures and population figures in the 1970s). But after the decline of the CRM, it looked like the SDLP were not organizing marches and rallies, etc. In fact John Hume, who was a very senior member in the 70s and was the SDLP’s leader in the 80s and 90s, was not a major advocate of marches during the time of the Civil Right Movement. He opposed three key marches during that time. And about 15 years ago, I read an article where a senior SDLP member poured cold water on the idea of organizing marches.

There are two more ways in which the SDLP didn’t represent a more populist, people-based and non-violently subversive response to what was being done to the Nationalist population. In general it wouldn’t hurt if you read this post about the SDLP. Items #4, #5, and #8 are especially relevant. #3 might also be relevant. As I wrote elsewhere on this blog:

In his 1998 book "McCann: War and Peace in Northern Ireland," NI socialist and trade-unionist Eamonn McCann writes, "the trade union movement is better placed than any other to purge the politics of this island of sectarianism. No other institution brings Catholic and Protestant workers together on a regular basis in pursuit of a common purpose which is antipathetic to sectarianism." McCann makes it clear that he doesn't think this potential has been tapped more than occasionally, and [Mark] Langhammer agrees with his analysis.

(Mark Langhammer is or was for a while a senior N. Ireland member of the Irish Labour Party)

I don’t know what SDLP members in the trade-union movement did or didn’t do along those lines, but the fact is they didn’t succeed in orientating that movement the way McCann and Langhammer suggested, and that might indicate that either A) they had almost no one in that movement and/or B) they didn’t try. As far as SDLP MEMBERS (not voters) go, they have been consistently described as being middle-class.

I don’t mean to totally acquit the Provisionals when it comes to this. Speaking of republicans in general, Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey called for them to do more work organizing people and less work organizing armies. What I said about the SDLP and the  trade-unions might apply, to a lesser degree, to PSF. As a more working-class party they probably had more members in the trade-unions, (but maybe not since they may have had more trouble getting jobs- because they were more likely to have a criminal record). I also won’t deny that Protestant and unionist TRADE-Unionists were probably less interested in what SF members had to say than what SDLP trade-unionists had to say. And lastly, although I’m certain PSF made more efforts to get people in the streets than the SDLP did, they weren’t ridiculously successful with it (that is, outside the context of the prisoners' struggle around 1980 when they were massively successful).

For more info about mass struggle in the Troubles, see this.


The other issue is something that was said about the creation of the Interstellar Alliance. As far as I can tell it’s similar to the Federation of Star Trek, but less centralized. While announcing the creation of the IA and inviting Earth to join, Delenn talks about free-trade (probably not anything comparable to NAFTA), a code of conduct for interstellar relations, a reserved but possibly very useful armed component, and more. At one point she says: “this new alliance will help less-advanced worlds improve their conditions.” It’s at moments like this when I wish I was about 20 times more familiar with the EU than I am, but it reminds me of the sometimes-met potential of the EU. The EU has, as far as I can tell, done a lot about civil rights and human rights and civil liberties. At the very least they have some potential to redistribute wealth around the EU. The Earth joins the IA, which requires them to recognize an independent Mars.


**Season 4, Episode 22 “The Deconstruction of Falling Stars”** See this for a plot summary.

This episode is more creative than most, and kind of special. We are shown a current affairs TV show discussion about 2-3 weeks after Sheridan defeats the forces loyal to the President. Then a similar show about 100 years after that event, and then a recording made 500 years after Sheridan’s victory and lastly, a hidden recording about 1,000 years after that event.

The first discussion involves an obnoxious supporter of the deceased President whose grip on power was broken by Sheridan. There’s a lot of talk from him about Sheridan being unsuitable as a leader of the Interstellar Alliance (IA). First, Sheridan is criticized for firing on "his own ships." What’s intentionally ignored is that there was a civil war raging, a war that Sheridan hadn’t started, and a war that involved the late President’s ships firing on their former colleagues in the Earth military. Second, he says that Sheridan arranged for independence for Mars “at gunpoint.” This ignores the fact that Earth was keeping Mars under Earth control, “at gunpoint.”

*         *          *          *

In the third part of this episode, we learn that one of two factions on Earth is preparing to launch a propaganda campaign aimed at weakening support for the IA by creating fake recordings of the top four Babylon 5 figures doing horrible things like summary executions, following speeches about how there will be no mercy. I am wondering how much of that is aimed at supporters of that faction, or undecideds, or the other faction. If it’s the latter, I guess it’s because they want to sow doubt and confusion about what the founders of the IA were really like.

Their motivation for this is that they feel the need and/or desire to colonize and conquer new worlds and the IA and it’s military (the Rangers) are obstacles. Which is exactly what they should be. The imperialist faction is also planning on launching a first strike, probably with nuclear weapons and aimed at civilian targets in areas their opponents govern. The virtual reality version of Garibaldi engages in some cleverness and warns the IA-aligned areas who strike at the military targets in areas governed by the imperialists.

Babylon 5 Reviews J

Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.

Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it goes further than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.


**Season 4, Episode 12 “Conflicts of Interest”** See this for a plot summary.

We learn a little bit more about Mars and it indicates something that I had kind of missed earlier. I still believe that the Earth-Mars conflict (before the Civil War) is comparable to the conflict between London and the original 13 American colonies. I am suddenly unsure if there was bigotry towards the colonists and if I should have known (from an earlier episode) there was hostility towards people born on Mars that might be considered racial. We learn in this episode that judges on Mars are appointed from Earth and are biased against those born on Mars. There was a weaker indication of this kind of stuff earlier, but I decided that it was a mistake by the writers, or that it was POLITICAL (not racial (or "planetary?")) bias and I ignored it.


**Season 4, Episode 13 “Rumors, Bargains, and Lies”** See this for a plot summary.

About 25 episodes earlier, the Minbari government, the Grey Council (GC), was dissolved. Without it, conflicts have arisen between the religious and warrior castes (there is also the workers caste but they weren’t mentioned in this episode). Delenn’s aide says that the GC suppressed the conflicts between the three castes but couldn’t erase them.

Delenn heads for Minbar and meets a leader of the warrior caste. She appeals to him for a solution where neither caste is the victor, believing that if one of them won it would break the delicate balance of Minbari society. But it turns out that the warrior caste isn’t as interested in dialogue and compromise as they pretended to be.


**Season 4, Episode 14 “Moments of Transition”** See this for a plot summary.

This episode is the conclusion of the conflict over power on Minbar. There is one issue that comes up and has little to do with the how the conflict is resolved.

That is the question of when is it acceptable to go to war. Although I am generally against war and assume it is horrible for everyone involved, I believe that sometimes it is justified and/or helpful and/or necessary. The leader of the Warrior Caste (Shakiri) says that wars should only be fought for practical gains, not for religious reasons or other principles.

I am sticking with my earlier impression that the Religious Caste is not as religious or (anywhere near) as right-wing as, for example, the Taliban, so I’m open-minded about what they might call a holy war. I might assume it would be less offensive to me than campaigns in reality that might be called holy wars- in general the Crusades would be examples, and so would Cromwell’s war in Ireland, etc.).

As far as wars for practical gains, I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of such wars would be offensive to me- they would probably be clearly imperialist wars (i.e. Indian Wars here, or the Indonesian occupation of East Timor).

I am open-minded about supporting wars that are for progressive principles. Of course one obstacle is the fact that people who might be called neo-imperialists can and will spin what they’re doing as principled. A recent example of that I believe was the Persian Gulf War (the 1991 conflict). Ones that I would have supported would be WWII (it was far from totally invulnerable to criticism, but I believe it was overall a pretty good cause and 99% of the time the Allies fought honorably), and perhaps the two conflicts the US was involved with in the former Yugoslavia.

Going back to the episode, it turns out that the junior leader of the Warrior Caste who seemed to double-cross Delenn at the end of the last episode actually WAS cooperating with her to some degree. Shortly after that, with Minbari cities being destroyed because of the war, Delenn (who has become possibly THE leader of the Religious Caste) surrenders.

As the Warrior Caste are formalizing the surrender, Delenn says something about how their surrender doesn’t mean they are giving up the right to participate in Minbari politics. Although I like her very next move, I’m not sure what to think about that statement by her. The Religious Caste was in a very weakened position. I don’t know if the anti-fascist side in the Spanish Civil War demanded such a right after they were defeated. And the ANC seemed to RELUCTANTLY agree to a limited and very brief period of sharing power with what I think would be called a post-Apartheid, overwhelmingly white party.

In any case, she basically challenges Shakiri to settle the conflict the way inter-caste conflicts were settled before the Grey Council by standing in some kind of heat beam. The first leader to leave the beam and live loses (this was developed partly because Minbari felt that leaders should risk death in conflict just as much as their soldiers did). Delenn enters the beam but Shakiri is hesitant until a junior leader calls him a hypocrite for refusing to risk his own life. Shakiri enters, then leaves. Delenn is then carried out by the junior leader.

The very best part of this episode is at the end. Traditionally the Grey Council has nine members- three from each of the three castes- worker, religious, and warrior. Forming a new GC Delenn gives two seats to the religious caste and two to the warrior caste, and FIVE to the workers caste. Although I think it’s a little flawed, for the most part her little speech justifying that is worth quoting. She seems to be speaking mostly to the other two castes:

“You had forgotten the Worker caste, hadn’t you? When our two sides fight, they are the ones caught in the middle, forgotten until it is their time to serve, to build and to die. They build the temples we pray in, the ships you fight it. They look to us to guide their hands. But prayers are fleeting and wars forgotten. What is built endures. They do not wish to conquer or convert, only to build the future. And now they will have that chance. The Religious caste and the Warrior caste will advise and counsel. We will serve, as is proper. Religion and war must act in the service of the people- not the other way around.”

My favorite parts are underlined.


**Season 4, Episode 15 “No Surrender, No Retreat”** See this for a plot sumamry.

At the end of the previous episode it was learned that Earth Alliance forces massacred civilian passengers of a space ship, killing thousands. Sheridan decides that enough is enough.

First, though, he needs to secure defensive forces for B5. He talks about the mutual support treaties that members of the League of Non-Aligned Worlds have with Earth and says that in exchange for the security Sheridan’s forces have been providing for those worlds, the treaties must be torn up and those planets must each provide one large military vessel for the defense of B5. He also, on a more ethical note, reminds them that the President of Earth is a xenophobe promoting mistrust of aliens.

While trying to get the Narn leader G’Kar to sign a joint statement about both races supporting Sherdian, the Centauri ambassador Mollari describes them both as patriots. Although he played a role in ENDING his race’s near genocidal occupation of Narn worlds, he also played a role in BEGINNING and SUSTAINING it for about a year. G’Kar was a leader, in exile, of the resistance on Narn. They might both be patriots, but there is a huge difference between them when you look just a little deeper.

The vast majority of the episode is about Sheridan going on the offensive in what would probably be seen as an important and medium-sized space battle between Sheridan’s fleet and six Earth Force ships that might be compared to battleships. One enemy ship is destroyed, one leaves the battle rather than fight for a corrupt government, one leaves without plans to take orders from Earth anymore, another stays to defend the planet they were earlier laying siege to, and two fully defect to Sheridan’s command. I find this sort of thing inspiring. Even if we look throughout human history and all over the world, I’m MUCH more an opponent of the military than a fan, but some times they do good, and the idea of senior officers defecting to support the re-instatement of freedom and/or democracy in their nation is great. I am not real familiar with this, but I know that in the mid-1970s elements of the Portuguese military overthrew a fascist dictatorship and, within a small number of years a democracy was created.