Category Archives: Commentary

All written commentary.

Zoe Saldana still shouldn’t be playing Nina Simone

  By

Representation is important. This mantra is something that you’ve probably seen and heard a lot all over the internet and from many People of Color in media, literature, science, and many other fields. Twitter alone has sparked so many movements to broaden the diversity: in video games with #INeedDiverseGames, in television shows with #DiversifyAgentCarter, and in publishing with #WeNeedDiverseBooks.

There is an obvious and vocalized need for diversity in everything we indulge in. But despite the calls for it and even with the attempts by different industries to give the people what they want, there are still so many mistakes being made.

A few years ago it was announced that there was going to be a biopic about Nina Simone. (The film made its Cannes Film Festival debut in May 2014 and was recently slated for release some time this year.) The movie, we were told, would be starring Zoe Saldana. This casting choice made many uncomfortable for several reasons.

Issues like Colorism and Eurocentric beauty standards are still a very open wound amongst Black people. Nina Simone was, famously, a dark skinned woman with very “African” physical features. Having her portrayed by Zoe Saldana, a lighter-skinned woman with more “acceptable” features (by White standards), is both insulting to Simone and a dishonest portrayal.

Left: Nina Simone, 1965 (credit). Right: Zoe Saldana, 2010 (credit). Composite image by Arsenal For Democracy.

Left: Nina Simone, 1965 (credit). Right: Zoe Saldana, 2010 (credit). Composite image by Arsenal For Democracy.

Subsequently released pictures of Zoe Saldana during filming showed her with darkened skin, a prosthetic nose, and an afro wig. These added even more insult to injury.

A lot of people will say that Saldana’s blackness should be enough, but that is still dishonest. Hollywood is an industry that already has issues with whitewashing characters of color (i.e. simply casting a White actor) and centralizing White characters in stories about People of Color’s issues. It also has a problem with how it casts characters of color in their films.

Characters that are initially described explicitly in their original novel or comic book sources as medium to darker skinned are cast with much lighter-skinned actors and actresses in the movie adaptations. Characters like Storm in the X-Men (who in the comic books ranged anywhere from medium to dark brown) and Christina in Divergent (who was described as dark brown in the books) are played by Halle Berry and Zoe Kravitz respectively, who are both very light skinned actresses.

People of African descent across the diaspora come in a wide range of skin tones in real life, but it seems that Hollywood only wants to present the section of the spectrum that is palatable to White people. This continues to reinforce the painful social norms, even within Black America, that have often prized lighter skin tones over darker.

In a film about Nina Simone, a woman who was well aware that her Black features were offensive to the White gaze, it’s impossible for the creators to not understand that this would be an issue. Yet the solution that they came to — based on the photos we’ve seen — made the situation worse. Darkening Zoe Saldana’s skin and having her wear a prosthetic nose is akin to, if not blatantly the same as, blackface.

Although the film is meant to honor the late singer, you can’t ignore the original history of blackface and how it was used to humiliate and mock Black people — and explicitly linking the darkest skin tones to other negative tropes. And yes, it was even performed by Black people, putting down those who looked the least like the majority-White society.

To ignore this context when making a movie about a woman whose life was shaped by her blackness — indeed her dark-skinned blackness specifically — isn’t honoring her life and legacy. It’s ignoring it.

Representation is important, but dishonest representations do nothing to break the status quo. It’s not enough to have one small portion of the blackness spectrum — of appearances and, by extension, life experiences — be what represents all of us.

No, Mr. President. TPP is not “progressive”.

  By

“TPP will end up being the most progressive trade agreement in our history” – Pres. Obama

The Globalist rebuttal:

The progressive movement, which Teddy Roosevelt helped champion a century ago, broke up business monopolies. It also promoted fair market competition, reformed taxation and gave voters a direct say on many issues. Furthermore, the progressive movement added protections against abusive labor practices, defended natural resources and reformed the business-captured U.S. Senate.

In this day and age, a progressive would also be someone who will make sure that trade deals are fair and balanced – instead of basically handing the keys to the trade castle to the U.S. multinational corporations, as Mr. Obama has largely done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Read More.

Is EU member democracy compatible with fiscal union?

  By

After four months of mounting tension between pro-austerity European Union officials and Greece’s anti-austerity Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, a breaking point appears to have arrived. The Prime Minister published an op-ed (see below) questioning whether the increasingly centralized fiscal / currency decision-making authority in the Union is compatible with continued democratic self-determination by each member country’s populations.

Asking that question so publicly (and in a hostile tone) is likely to solidify his growing pariah status within the European Union, but it is not altogether unreasonable. In fact, more than a few political theorists and economists have been raising the point since the start of the currency crisis in 2010. Maybe it’s simply not possible to have a strong monetary / fiscal / currency union without an equally strong political union. Such an arrangement either allows individual member countries’ voters and legislators to veto necessary standardization of union-wide policies, or it forces member countries to accept rules and decisions set by unelected and unrepresentative officials without popular consent.

In Greece’s case, the voters plainly rejected the policies that the Union and the IMF demanded the government deliver. Whether or not the policies are merited, if the people exercise their sovereign self-determination to reject the policies, the ostensibly pro-democracy European Union either needs to rethink its demands or rethink its overall sustainability as an economic union without political unity.

Here are excerpts from the Tsipras op-ed, as reported by the UK’s Express newspaper:

He envisioned a future where a “super” finance minister of the eurozone wielded unlimited power and the ability to reject budgets of sovereign states that are not aligned with its “extreme” ideals.
[…]
Writing in an article for a French newspaper this weekend, Mr Tsipras blasted creditors.

He said: “The lack of an agreement so far is not due to the supposed intransigent, uncompromising and incomprehensible Greek stance.

“It is due to the insistence of certain institutional actors on submitting absurd proposals and displaying a total indifference to the recent democratic choice of the Greek people.”

He added: “An initial thought would be that this insistence is due to the desire of some to not admit their mistakes and instead, to reaffirm their choices by ignoring their failures.

“I simply cannot believe that the future of Europe depends on the stubbornness or the insistence of some individuals.

“My conclusion, therefore, is that the issue of Greece does not only concern Greece; rather, it is the very epicentre of conflict between two diametrically opposing strategies concerning the future of European unification.”

Mr Tsipras said that the strategy of EU creditors who insist on austerity means “the complete abolition of democracy in Europe, the end of every pretext of democracy, and the beginning of disintegration and of an unacceptable division of United Europe.”

He added: “This means the beginning of the creation of a technocratic monstrosity that will lead to a Europe entirely alien to its founding principles.

“It appears that this new European power is being constructed, with Greece being the first victim. To some, this represents a golden opportunity to make an example out of Greece for other countries that might be thinking of not following this new line of discipline.”

He finished the article by adding: “If some, however, think or want to believe that this decision concerns only Greece, they are making a grave mistake.”

 
For more analysis on this tension between the European Union’s supranational democratic deficit and member-national self-determination see my March 2015 essay, “Drawbacks of Technocracy, Part 1: Europe’s Political Crisis”.

greek-euro-10-acropolis

Beau

  By

As you all no doubt know by now, former Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden (one of the Vice President’s sons) passed away yesterday from brain cancer at age 46.

I was fortunate enough to meet him during his re-election campaign when I was the President of the University of Delaware College Democrats. I didn’t necessarily agree with him on every issue, but he was a very decent and good man. He truly cared about the people he served.

Indeed, Beau Biden was one of the few people I’ve ever met in politics who seemed sincere when he referred to his public service — in Kosovo, Delaware, Iraq, or in swing states for his father — as an obligation, and said his career was not about ambition. He was there because it was the family business and he hoped he could use that background to help people. Not because he wanted office itself.

In fact, he also seemed pretty sincere when he would quietly suggest he didn’t really want to be there – in politics – at all … and would rather be spending time with his family. He did not seek any office last fall and retired in January specifically, as I understand it, so that he could do just that: spend his little remaining time with his family.

Beau Biden accomplished a lot in his short life. He wasted no time, because he knew that his father had had a near-fatal health scare around the same age and it might happen to him too. He will certainly be missed.

BS bromides

  By

Greta Christina tore apart the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” cliche in magnificent depth:

You can’t separate fiscal issues from social issues. They’re deeply intertwined. They affect each other. Economic issues often are social issues. And conservative fiscal policies do enormous social harm. That’s true even for the mildest, most generous version of “fiscal conservatism” — low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, a free market. These policies perpetuate human rights abuses. They make life harder for people who already have hard lives. Even if the people supporting these policies don’t intend this, the policies are racist, sexist, classist (obviously), ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and otherwise socially retrograde. In many ways, they do more harm than so-called “social policies” that are supposedly separate from economic ones. Here are seven reasons that “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” is nonsense.

 
She analyzes the “fiscally conservative” influences on the following social issues:
1: Poverty, and the cycle of poverty.
2: Domestic violence, workplace harassment, and other abuse.
3: Disenfranchisement.
4: Racist policing.
5: Drug policy and prison policy.
6: Deregulation.
7: “Free” trade.

She then concludes:

There are conservatives who will insist that this isn’t what “fiscally conservative” means. They’re not inherently opposed to government spending, they say. They’re just opposed to ineffective and wasteful government spending.

Bullshit. Do they really think progressives are in favor of wasteful and ineffective government? Do they think we’re saying, “Thumbs up to ineffective government spending! Let’s pour our government’s resources down a rat hole! Let’s spend our tax money giving every citizen a solid-gold tuba and a lifetime subscription to Cigar Aficionado!” This is an idealized, self-serving definition of “fiscally conservative,” defined by conservatives to make their position seem reasonable. It does not describe fiscal conservatism as it actually plays out in the United States. The reality of fiscal conservatism in the United States is not cautious, evidence-based attention to which government programs do and don’t work. If that were ever true in some misty nostalgic past, it hasn’t been true for a long, long time. The reality of fiscal conservatism in the United States means slashing government programs, even when they’ve been shown to work. The reality means decimating government regulations, even when they’ve been shown to improve people’s lives. The reality means cutting the safety net to ribbons, and letting big businesses do pretty much whatever they want.

 
I’ve been dying for someone (who wasn’t me) to write this piece. I keep hearing the phrase from other Millennials, especially recently, and it’s just so frustrating. Definitely you should read the full piece, as it goes into tremendous detail.

Op-Ed | Nigeria’s Moment

  By

The following essay also appeared in The Globalist.

On May 29, Nigeria experienced its first peaceful transfer of power between two elected leaders from rival parties. This is cause for celebration despite Nigeria’s recent hardships.

While it might not seem like it at this moment, Nigeria could also well be on the verge of its long-awaited global economic breakout.

View of Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria, 2012. (Credit: Bryn Pinzgauer - Wikimedia)

View of Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria, 2012. (Credit: Bryn Pinzgauer – Wikimedia)

Among the world’s major economies, Nigeria is now either the 20th or 21st largest national economy in the world (depending on who’s counting).

According to an analysis by PwC released in February 2015, Nigeria is expected to climb 11 places in the rankings by the year 2050. That would mark the single greatest projected increase for any top 20 economy over that time period.

It would also put Nigeria into the top 10 economies worldwide, ahead of Germany and just behind fellow oil producer Russia.

Yes, there are still problems

It is true, of course, that security concerns and corruption could pose challenges to Nigeria’s projected growth. The past year’s government scandals and the violence of the northern insurgency were very much on the minds of voters in the recent national elections.

It is also true that among the major emerging market economies, Nigeria currently ranks as the hardest place to do business, according to the World Bank. It stands at 170th out of all 189 states ranked.

The country’s new president, former General Muhammadu Buhari, has pledged to crack down on corruption and inefficiencies as a top priority.

While, as always in Nigeria, it remains to be seen whether he puts his words into actions, Buhari has at least the advantage of having been around Nigerian power politics for a long time. He will not be cripplingly dependent on inept “advisers” as his inexperienced, neophyte predecessor was.

If the country manages to turn the corner on some of its past ghosts, then there is nothing preventing Nigeria’s dynamic rise.

Ultimately, the demographics are simply too favorable to stop Nigeria’s economic rise altogether in the coming decades.

The very good news

The country, which is sub-Saharan Africa’s 10th largest by land area, currently has 183.5 million people. While that makes Nigeria the seventh most populous nation on Earth right now, it is expected to reach the third spot – ranking behind only India and China by 2050.

Nigeria’s population is slated to increase by nearly 257 million between now and then. That market size makes it an attractive destination in itself. It is also well positioned to become Africa’s business leader, given the dynamics of its entrepreneurial class.
Read more

Rwanda joins the Third-Termism bandwagon

  By

As long expected, Rwanda’s parliament has joined neighboring Congo and Burundi (and beyond) in bids to repeal constitutionally-imposed term limits on their presidencies. France24:

The debate, set to take place over the next two months, was prompted by parliament being handed petitions signed by a total of two million people – or roughly 17 percent of the population – asking for the constitution to be changed, the head of the chamber, Donatilla Mukabalisa, told AFP.

“We have received two million requests,” she said, explaining that parliament has been receiving a number of what she insisted were spontaneous letters and petitions from individuals, groups or associations.

 
However, there are two significant differences in the Rwanda case, although all involve relatively authoritarian elected leaders.

The first is that Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame is already now in his 15th year in office (3 of them under an older constitution and 10 under the 2003 constitution) and the term length at the moment is a whopping 7 years. That length used to be more common under constitutions inspired by the French constitution of 1958, but it had fallen out of favor in most places some time ago and was removed in France itself in 2000. 4-5 years is the prevailing world standard for presidents and prime ministers at this point. Kagame’s new “first” term (after the 2003 constitution) was from 2003 to 2010. His second term began in 2010 and will not end until 2017. He would therefore have served a full 17 years as President of Rwanda even before embarking on a “third” term under the proposed constitutional revision now under consideration. Were he to serve out that term as well, and assuming that the term lengths are not shortened when the limit is lifted, Mr. Kagame would have served for an uninterrupted 24 years. As usual, his relationship with democracy is superficial and procedural at best.

The second is that, unlike many of the sub-Saharan African leaders who have been trying to remove term limits in the past year, Paul Kagame is widely supported enthusiastically by the international community to the point of getting a free pass on most abusive actions. It will be interesting to see which allies, if any, part ways with him over this issue after so much Western criticism of efforts to lift term limits in other countries.