Humans could paint in the old-old times too!

Daily news

7 November 2018

World’s first figurative art is of an unknown animal in Borneo

A landscape in Borneo

Borneo is home to the world’s oldest figurative art

Pindi Setiawanpainting

At first glance you might miss it. But a faint drawing of an unknown animal on a cave wall in a remote Borneo jungle is the oldest known figurative art. The painting was made at least 40,000 years ago, predating famous depictions of animals found on European caves and shaking up our understanding of the origins of art – a key innovation in human history.

The limestone caves of the remote East Kalimantan province of Borneo are adorned with thousands of images in three distinct styles: reddish-orange hand stencils and paintings of animals, purple hand stencils with intricate designs as well as human figures, and complex black depictions of humans, boats and geometric patterns. But the dates when these painting were created were a mystery.

“The art was discovered in the 1990s. We wanted to find out exactly how old it was,” says Maxime Aubert of Griffiths University in Queensland, Australia.

So he and his colleagues analysed the calcite layers covering the paintings. This crystalline material is deposited by dripping water and analysis of the uranium it contains gives a date for when the art beneath was created.

On a panel of depicting large reddish-orange wild-cattle, the researchers discovered that a faint animal had been drawn between 40,000 and 52,000 years ago. This makes it the oldest known figurative art and builds on the 2014 discovery of a hand stencil dating back at least 35,700 years on the neighbouring Indonesian island of Sulawesi. “It was quite amazing,” says Aubert.

A faint painted red animal

The world’s oldest figurative art

Luc-Henri Fage

The ability to depict real-life objects seems to have developed tens of thousands of years after humans first started to draw. The oldest drawing in the world is a 73,000 year-old crosshatch found in a South African cave. In Europe, the oldest art is also an abstract symbol of red lines and a hand stencil, made by Neanderthals around 65,000 years ago.

But these abstract designs are simpler than representational art, which makes the Borneo discovery particularly significant. “Figurative art is a more complex thing to do,” says Aubert.

The finding adds to the mounting evidence that Southeast Asia is a key site for the development of art, not just Europe as once thought. At the same time as art was developing in Europe, he says, “humans were making sophisticated paintings on the opposite side of the world.”

The researchers also found that the three different painting styles were created in three distinct phases, probably by different waves of people.

The purple-coloured painting style started around 20,000 thousand years ago. It is very different from the original reddish phase, depicting human figures with elaborate headdresses dancing and hunting, along with hand stencils decorated with geometric motifs, sometimes joined together by lines like a family tree.

The black paintings of people and boats are much more recent, and may be associated with the movement of Neolithic farmers into the region about 4,000 years ago.

The artists of all three phases are unknown. “That’s one of the big questions,” says Aubert, who plans to go back to Borneo next year to conduct archaeological investigations to find out more about these people.

See the video a this link: newscientist.com

Journal reference: See full article  Nature, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0679-9

More articles at: nationalgeographic.com

bbc.com

Advertisements
Posta under Archaeology, Asia | Merkt , , , | Kommenter innlegget

1. Verdskrig – Eit helvete på jord – 100 år sidan slutten

11. november i år er det 100 år sidan våpna endeleg stilna i 1. Verdskrig – Eit sant helvete på jord vart han kalla. Omlag 18 millionar (men ingen veit sikkert) soldatar (mest unge) og sivile forsvann ut av historia, lemlesta og drept på slagmarka/skytargravene og drept i landsbyane sine i kule- og bomberegn. Store deler av generasjonen fødd 1892-95 vart radert ut. Pur unge soldatar fall i milliontal – Den tapte generasjon har forfattarar kalla denne katastrofen av tapte menneskeliv. Har verda lært noko som helst av dette 100 år seinare? Berre tenk på NATO, eller?

Først eit utdrag av hovudlinene om 1. verdskrig med vidare lesing, frå Store norske leksikon. Så ei lenke til programmet Ekko i NRK P2 sitt innslag «100 år siden 1. verdenskrigs slutt» om stormaktene og deira imperialistiske kamp for verdsoverdøme og koloniar. Frå bloggen min ein artikkel om mi bokmelding om Den russiske revolusjon i oktober/november 1917. Revolusjonen kan heilt faktamessigt sjåast som eit indirekte (heilt direkte vil nokon meine) resultat av Tsar-Russlands deltaking i 1. verdskrig. Difor denne lenka. Til slutt eit 26 min. radioprogram frå BBC World Service med tittelen «The Great Unravelling: War», der verdsordenen først og fremst skapt etter 2. verdskrig og dreve fram av mest av USA, vert teke opp. Men denne problematikken kan klart sporast minst attende til 1. verdskrig og «sigersmaktene» etterpå. Programmet tek som hovudtrekk føre seg stomaktene sin verdsordning, spesielt USA, og deira krigar og intervensjonar. Er denne «orden» i ferd med å rakne eller ikkje, spør programmet.

God lesing og lytting, Ivar Jørdre

 

Britiske ammunisjonsvogner passerer Delville-skogen i utkanten av Somme 17. desember 1916. Slaget ved Somme juni–november 1916 var et av de blodigste under krigen. Første verdenskrig er ansett som en av de dødeligste konflikter i nyere tid. Det totale antall drepte soldater og sivile er anslått til nærmere 18 millioner.

Delville av Ukjent/Topfoto, Scanpix. Gjengitt med tillatelse

 

Den første verdenskrig var en verdensomspennende storkrig med utgangspunkt i Europa som varte fra 1914 til 1918.

To allianser stod mot hverandre i krigen. På den ene siden var Frankrike, Russland, Storbritannia, og fra 1917 USA, de sentrale aktørene. På den andre siden var det Tyskland, Østerrike-Ungarn, og fra høsten 1914 Det osmanske riket.

Første verdenskrig er ansett som en av de dødeligste konflikter i nyere tid. Det totale antall drepte soldater og sivile er anslått til nærmere 18 millioner. Flere teknologiske nyvinninger som fly, ubåter, stridsvogner og giftgass ble tatt i bruk, og bidro til å gjøre den første globale og moderne industrielle krig så dødelig.

Første verdenskrig foregikk i all hovedsak på det europeiske kontinent, men krigen og dens konsekvenser spredte seg også til Midtøsten, Afrika, deler av Asia og verdenshavene. Mens kampene på den europeiske østfronten var preget av stor bevegelighet, utviklet krigen i vest seg raskt til en stillingskrig. Allerede i løpet av krigens første år ble provisoriske skyttergraver bygget langs fronten, og etter hvert strakk de seg fra Den engelske kanal til den sveitsiske grensen.

Det var først etter USAs inntreden i krigen at de allierte kunne gjennomføre en serie vellykkede offensiver sommeren og høsten 1918. Den allierte fremgangen på slagmarken sammenfalt med intern uro i Tyskland, og 11. november 1918 ble det undertegnet en våpenstillstandsavtale mellom de to alliansene.

I 1919 ble det inngått en fredsavtale mellom de allierte og det beseirede Tyskland. Avtalen er senere kjent som Versaillestraktaten. Den la ansvaret for utbruddet av krigen på Tyskland, i den såkalte krigsskyldsparagrafen, og landet ble tvunget til å utbetale store summer i krigsskadeerstatning til sine motstandere. I tillegg måtte landet tilbakeføre grenseområdene Alsace-Lorraine (tysk Elsass-Lothringen) til Frankrike samt oppgi flere av sine kolonier i Afrika og Asia.

Første verdenskrig førte med seg vidtrekkende politiske, økonomiske og kulturelle konsekvenser for både Europa og resten av verden. De fire keiserdømmene Russland, Tyskland, Østerrike-Ungarn og Det osmanske riket kollapset til dels som en konsekvens av krigen. I kjølvannet av krigen ble et knippe nye stater etablert samtidig som nye nasjonale og etniske konflikter, revolusjoner og kriger oppstod i både Europa og rundt om i verden.

Krigen medvirket til at flere ekstreme politiske ideologier som fascisme, nazisme, kommunisme og militant islamisme fikk sitt gjennombrudd. Fremveksten av disse nye ideologiene kan til dels forklares i en søken etter svar på hvordan en ny storkrig kunne forhindres og hvordan en ny, og ofte utopisk, verden skulle bygges for å hindre en tilsvarende katastrofe.

Første verdenskrig markerte et veiskille i europeisk og vestlig historie, en urkatastrofe som fremdeles preger dagens samfunn. Generasjonen som vokste opp under krigen er i enkelte sammenhenger blitt kalt for «den tapte generasjon». For dem var krigen en hendelse som hadde fratatt dem en uskyld og en ungdomstid, en tapt verden. Begrepet er først og fremst gjort kjent innenfor skjønnlitteraturen av forfattere som Ernest Hemingway og Erich Maria Remarque samt diktere som Wilfred Owen og Rupert Brooke.

Utdrag frå: Brazier, Eirik & Kirkhusmo, Anders. (2018, 1. oktober). Første Verdenskrig. I Store norske leksikon. Hentet 9. november 2018 fra https://snl.no/f%C3%B8rste_verdenskrig.

LES VIDARE PÅ Store norske leksikon, Wikipedia, historienet.no (populervitskapleg) og/eller t.d. art. Første verdenskrig som bruddpunkt i norsk historie, av Einar Lie, UiO.

Posta under Europa, Politikk, samfunn, Vår globale verd | Merkt , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

The Democrats in General Doesn’t Change the «Ground»

The Democratic Party doesn’t deserve your vote

November 6, 2018

The record of the Democrats proves that voting for the “lesser evil” doesn’t stop evil.

NO ONE reading this article needed one, but the last weeks were a reminder anyway: that there is no low point of hate and fearmongering that Donald Trump can’t sink below.

Trump and his “brain” trust decided that the Republicans’ best bet for the midterm elections would be to slander a caravan of refugees from violence and oppression in Central America — and to send who knows how many U.S. soldiers to the border to meet this grave threat.

They succeeded in whipping up their right-wing base. But they also sharpened the outrage and anger of millions of people who already oppose Trump — and who will vote in today’s elections with a sense of alarm about stopping the fanatic in the White House.

In almost every case, those millions who want to vote against Trump will have no real choice but to vote for the Democratic Party, which has also been determined — but not about stopping Trump’s crimes.

During the same weeks when Trump piled one anti-immigrant atrocity on top of another, the leaders of the “party of the people” were determined not to say anything about it.

The Democratic Party doesn't deserve your vote

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had the same infuriating message of evasion last weekend that she’s repeated for months. Rather than let voters “think the Democrats are all about impeachment, investigation, caravans, ‘scaravans,’” Pelosi recommended: “Don’t take the bait, just stick with health care, good-paying jobs and clean government.”

The Democrats are likely to make gains at all levels of government in today’s elections, probably enough to win a majority in the House, if not in the Senate. It will be a pleasure to watch some of the most monstrous Republicans go down to defeat.

If the Democrats win big, it will be because millions of people use this election to register their opposition to Trump, the Republican Party and the right wing agenda.

It won’t, however, be because the Democratic Party is providing an alternative to the Trumpian status quo, much less a lead to the popular resistance that has confronted the Trump administration from its first day in office.

This election has been a departure in one respect: The media spotlight has fallen on a number of left-wing candidates running as Democrats in this election, including members of the Democratic Socialists of America. The left needs to absorb the lessons of this development.

But we do know that those candidates won’t be calling the shots come January. As an institution, and under the leadership of those who will call the shots, the Democrats aren’t committed to the kind of change that most of their voters would like to see.

Whatever they say — or don’t say — on the campaign trail, the Democrats’ dismal record in office shows that they will disappoint their liberal base with compromises and capitulations to the Republicans.

Unless, that is, both Democrats and Republicans face pressure from outside the two-party system.

This is the key to building an actual resistance to Trump and the Republicans: Not voting for Democrats in the hope that they will change anything for us, but relying on the strength of our co-workers, our fellow students and our community to educate, agitate and organize struggles that put forward a left-wing alternative.


THE MISERY of living under Trump has produced some of the largest protests in U.S. history, starting with the Women’s March on the day after his inauguration.

These demonstrations have been an ongoing reminder of both the rejection of Trump and his politics by a majority of people in the country and the desire of millions of people to start doing something about it.

Democratic Party leaders have a use for the first part — but not so much for the second.

Thus, throughout the upsurge of anger over Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, Democrats expressed their opposition — most of them, anyway — while trying to channel people’s outrage toward the voting booth and warning that protests could go too far and “alienate” potential supporters.

The unions and large liberal organizations, including organizers of the Women’s Marches, didn’t make the call to mobilize another massive show of anti-Trump strength, so the protests against Kavanaugh that did take place were angry and powerful, but scattered.

The dynamic is even more telling when it comes to immigrant rights.

The most recent of the truly massive anti-Trump demonstrations was the Families Belong Together mobilizations in late June that brought out hundreds of thousands of people for protests and marches in 750 cities and every state to vent their anger at the administration’s cruel family separation policy.

But this fall, the Democrats were mostly silent on the issue. They were advised — by the progressive think tank, the Center for American Progress, among others — to “spend as little time as possible” talking about immigration during election season, so as not to emphasize an issue where it’s taken for granted that the Republicans have an advantage.

Actually, the mass protests and even more massive public revulsion at Trump’s policies showed the potential for putting Republicans on the defensive — and on an issue they depend on to rev up their right-wing base.

But the Democrats followed the same election-year strategy they always do: chase every last “swing voter” in the political middle of the road, and that means avoiding anything controversial.


THE PROBLEM goes beyond timid campaign tactics. The Democrats’ strategy is the logical outcome for a party that says it stands for immigrant justice to satisfy its more liberal base at election time, but that stands in practice for a status quo where implementing justice would be a social and political threat.

It is no coincidence that the Democratic Party’s actual agenda on immigration issues mirrors that of Corporate America: support for a system that allows immigration to supplement the U.S. workforce at various levels, but that disciplines that workforce by keeping most immigrants in a second-class status.

Thus, the hopes in 2008 that Barack Obama would pass real immigration reform during his first months in office were fated to be dashed.

Not only did Obama fail to achieve any initiative, even a compromised one, to legalize the status of any undocumented workers, but he followed through on Corporate America’s other priority of using enforcement to maintain control over workers — and deportations went up, not down.

This experience illustrates the problems with voting for the Democrats as the lesser of two evils. On immigration, the “lesser evil” candidate in 2008 ended up presiding over more actual evil than his “greater evil” predecessor, George W. Bush.

In the era of Trump, it usually isn’t hard to figure out who the greater evil is in any one election. But as the American socialist Hal Draper wrote, the problem isn’t the answer, but the question itself — because it accepts the limits of the two-party system and distorts the political outlook of people who need to be a part of changing the world.

Let’s go back to Obama and the issue of immigration. In 2008, the immigrant rights movement was only two years away from an amazing high point that really did achieve a victory. The mega-marches and “day without an immigrant” strikes of 2006 stopped reactionary Republican legislation that would have criminalized all of the undocumented in the U.S.

But under Obama, the same liberal forces that helped organize the 2006 upsurge were far quieter, hoping that they could work with their supposed ally in the White House. Calls to protest Obama’s lack of action were met with warnings that being too radical would hand the Republicans an issue to hammer the Democrats with.

And so Barack Obama became the deporter-in-chief without facing mass opposition on the scale of 2006 — and the promise of any reform, even with the twisted compromises that the Democrats insisted on, went unfulfilled.

Malcolm X once said that “you put the Democrats first and the Democrats put you last.” When Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democratic Party know they can count on the party’s liberal base to vote for their candidates, no matter what, they can move in the direction that inevitably feels more comfortable: to the right.


THOUGH YOU’D never know it to listen to Pelosi, there are more Democratic candidates this year who progressives might want to vote for, rather than only voting against the Republicans.

The anti-Trump upsurge of the past two years has helped the Democrats field a more diverse group of candidates than ever before, and more Democrats are willing to say they stand for progressive proposals like Medicare for All.

This is also the result of a surge of candidates who, following the lead of Sen. Bernie Sanders, explicitly identify themselves as democratic socialists. Their successes are a direct result of the hard organizing work of members of DSA and other left forces, and those successes have, in turn, raised the prominence of DSA and socialism in general.

Among DSA members in particular, there is sharp opposition to the neoliberal, pro-corporate program championed by the likes of Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Though many DSAers will likely choose to vote for establishment-sanctioned Democrats in 2018 and 2020, others will make the principled decision to refuse to support those Democratic candidates who don’t support them.

This is an important development for anyone who looks forward, as we do at SW, to the establishment of a left-wing political force independent of the two-party system.

But our analysis would be inadequate if we didn’t point out the dangers for socialists trying to build their forces within a capitalist party that is hostile to their aims. The very success of left-wing candidates within the party makes it harder to resist the pressure that draws them further in.

Thus, DSA member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a primary election upset for a seat in Congress from New York City over powerful party boss Joe Crowley. Her victory was a blow to the party leadership — but her new prominence led to requests, to which she agreed, to endorse and campaign for Democrats who are well to her right.

Historically, the Democrats have been willing to tolerate a left within the party and a certain amount of criticism as a price worth paying for having well-known figures who can build enthusiasm among the party’s liberal base.

The great danger for the left has been to be drawn in — and to, as a consequence, tailor and limit its message and strategy based on the needs of the Democrats, rather than the Democrats changing the party’s aims and actions in any significant way.

Socialist Worker has maintained since its founding that we look forward to the creation of an independent left alternative to the two-party system, and we put this into practice in every election by supporting only independent left-wing candidates. We say that the Democratic Party doesn’t deserve your votes — and you shouldn’t give it something it doesn’t deserve.

There are only a few such independent left candidates around the country in 2018 offering an opportunity to cast a protest vote against the limitations of the two-party system.

More numerous are the very important referendums where socialists should take a stand: Issue 1 (drug law reform) in Ohio; Question 1 (safe staffing) and Question 3 (transgender rights) in Massachusetts; and Proposition 10 (rent control) and Proposition 11 (paramedics’ rights on the job) in California, to name a few that SW has written about recently.

Ultimately, organizing a socialist resistance in the Trump era depends much more on the struggles of every day other than Election Day. That was our task every day leading up to November 6 — and every day after, when we look forward to uniting to fight the Trumpian right, as well as its Democratic Party enablers.

Posta under Our global world, Politic&Society, Socialism | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

A New Hope for US Left with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

Published on
by

It’s Official: Unabashed Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Now Youngest Woman Ever Elected to Congress

«Ocasio-Cortez pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in American history and proved that America can still be a place where a working class woman of color can defeat a 10-term incumbent and his Wall Street-funded machine.»

 

New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks at a rally calling on Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to reject Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court on October 1, 2018 in Boston, Massachusetts. Sen. Flake is scheduled to give a talk at the Forbes 30 under 30 event in Boston after recently calling for a one week pause in the confirmation process to give the FBI more time to investigate sexual assault allegations. (Photo: Scott Eisen/Getty Images)

Making it official that a talented young candidate running on an unapologetic progressive agenda can unseat Democratic incumbents «who are ideologically and demographically out-of-touch with their voters,» Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday night won her race for the U.S. House of Representative in New York’s 14th District—making her the youngest female member of Congress ever elected and a leading voice among those pushing a much bolder agenda for the party.

After her historic primary upset over Rep. Joe Crowley this summer, Ocasio-Cortez’s general election was seen as a formality in the Democratic stronghold, but progressives celebrated the election night victory nonetheless as an historic milestone and exciting development for the insurgent left.

«Ocasio-Cortez pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in American history and proved that America can still be a place where a working class woman of color can defeat a 10-term incumbent and his Wall Street-funded machine,» said Justice Democrats communications director Waleed Shahid.

«One of the most important victories tonight belongs to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the movement she has sparked,» Alexandra Rojas,  executive director of Justice Democrats, added.  With the win, Rojas said, the progressive movement challenging the establishment of the Democratic Party has shown it «can unseat Democrats who are ideologically and demographically out-of-touch with their voters and forced Democratic elected across the country to stiffen their spines.»

Ocasio-Cortez delivered her acceptance speech in New York just after 10pm ET.

Posta under Our global world, Politic&Society, Socialism | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Brazilian Fascist President and the Ruling Class – Part 1

Published on
by

After Win by Brazilian Fascist Jair Bolsonaro, World’s Capitalists Salivate Over «New Investment Opportunities»

«Capitalism only asks whether fascism is profitable.»

Jair Bolsonaro gestures after casting his vote during general elections on October 28, 2018 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (Photo: Buda Mendes/Getty Images)

As Brazilian women, the LGBTQ community, workers, and people of color reacted with horror to the election of fascist Jair Bolsonaro to the presidency on Sunday after a campaign dripping in bigotry and militarism, Western corporate interests and the business press could hardly contain their glee over the victory of the hard-right former paratrooper who has promised to further pry open Brazilian markets to foreign investment, slash corporate taxes, and privatize the nation’s public services.

«Big business sees the victory of Brazilian fascism as a massive investment opportunity.»
—Owen Jones, The Guardian

While highlighting Bolsonaro’s «homophobic, racist, and misogynist statements,» the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) gushed that his win over Workers» Party candidate Fernando Haddad «could mean fresh opportunities for Canadian companies looking to invest in the resource-rich country» thanks to his strong commitment to «open markets.»

«It could be a good time to be a mining investor in Brazil,» declared Anna Prusa, a former U.S. State Department official who researches Brazil for the Wilson Center, a Washington, D.C.-based firm.

Canadian business interests are hardly the only ones well-positioned to profit immensely from Bolsonaro’s iron-fisted regime.

As The Intercept reported last week, American business elites were positively giddy at the prospect of a Bolsonaro victory, which one executive said would be a «bullish opportunity for us.»

Enthused by Bolsonaro’s selection of right-wing University of Chicago-trained financier Paulo Guedes to craft his economic agenda, investors are «more than happy to overlook the authoritarian impulses and violent promises,» The Intercept«s Lee Fang and Zaid Jilani note.

«Guedes has promised to sell off state assets, cut the public pension system, revise the tax code, and deregulate the economy,» Fang and Jilani reported. «Another Bolsonaro adviser, Nabhan Garcia, told Reuters that the administration would slash fines for farmers who violate environmental rules in sensitive areas like the Amazon.»

Corporate excitement over Bolsonaro’s ascent to power—made possible in large part by the imprisonment of Brazil’s former president and most popular politician, Lula da Silva, on corruption charges that have been denounced as highly questionable—began when the far-right lawmaker prevailed in the first round of elections earlier this month.

«Brazil stocks outshined the rest of the world» ahead of Sunday’s election, CNBC reported.

Following Bolsonaro’s 10-point victory, stocks continued to skyrocket as investors cheered the rise of an authoritarian who has promised to gut the public sector and «give carte blanche for the police to kill

«Jair Bolsonaro said the words investors wanted to hear,» Bloomberg reported on Monday. «Brazil’s next president pledged to trim the deficit, pay down debt and reduce the size of government after results showed him cruising to victory over Fernando Haddad of the left-wing Workers» Party. That helped Brazilian assets extend gains Monday, with the currency adding as much as 1.5 percent and Ibovespa stock futures climbing 4 percent in early trading. An American depository receipt of state-controlled oil producer Petroleo Brasileiro SA jumped 7.1 percent in pre-market hours.»

Posta under Capitalism, Latin-Amerika, Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Brazilian Fascist President and the Ruling Class – Part 2

Published on
by

Watch: Glenn Greenwald Breaks Down Lessons for the West From Bolsonaro’s Fascist Victory in Brazil

«When the establishment class fails a huge portion of the population for enough time and to enough of an extent, sooner or later they will decide that it is the ruling class that is their enemy.»

Glenn Greenwald

 American journalist and constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil, broke down the top lessons for Western democracies from recent electoral victory of Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro. (Photo: The Intercept/YouTube)

In a video published by The Intercept on Monday, U.S. journalist and constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil, breaks down the top lessons for Western democracies from the rise and ultimate victory of Brazil’s newly elected fascist, misogynistic, racist, and homophobic president, Jair Bolsonaro.

Greenwald challenges the popular Western media narrative that Brazil’s new leader is the President Donald Trump of the Tropics, calling it «woefully inadequate—in fact, wildly misleading.» Bolsonaro poses a far graver danger to basic human rights and democracy, Greenwald argues, because he previously was part of a military dictatorship and wants to reimpose it; Brazil’s institutions are newer and far more fragile than other democracies, limiting accountability; and he comes from the right-wing movement of the 1960s and 1970s—which obsessed about an «existential war» with Communism—rather than today’s emerging reactionary movements in the U.S. and Europe that focus on stoking xenophobia while attacking social programs and democratic institutions.

Bolsonaro’s victory, he explains, largely comes not from voters who support his hatred toward marginalized groups, but from poor people, people of color, LGBTQ people, and women «who voted for him despite that out of desperation and hopelessness.» The lesson to take from Brazil is, according to Greenwald, «when the establishment class fails a huge portion of the population for enough time and to enough of an extent, sooner or later they will decide that it is the ruling class that is their enemy and they will run into the arms of anybody who they perceive as being its enemy and who is threatening to tear it down.»

Watch:

Posta under Capitalism, Latin-Amerika, Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Brazilian Fascist President and the Ruling Class – Part 3

Published on
by

As Latin America Braces for «Bolsonaro Effect,» Leftist Teachers Already Being Targeted by Brazil’s Fascist Forces

«Freedom of thought is not a concession made by the state. It is a fundamental right.»

Jair Bolsonaro, far-right lawmaker and presidential candidate of the Social Liberal Party (PSL), gestures after casting his vote during general elections on October 28, 2018 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (Photo by Buda Mendes/Getty Images)

Within days of retired military officer Jair Bolsonaro’s victory in Brazil’s presidential election, the president-elect’s party is already demonstrating how a rapid rise of fascism will target its perceived political enemies and attack fundamental democratic principles in the country.

Less than 24 hours after Sunday’s election results were in, State Representative Ana Caroline Campagnolo, who was elected to represent Bolsonaro’s Social Liberal party in the legislature earlier this month, called on students to report teachers voicing criticism of his victory or policies.

As the Guardian reports, students who see or hear their teachers expressing outrage over the new president—whose open racism, misogyny, and plans to purge the country of leftists, has inspired millions to demonstrate against him in Brazil and around the world—were encouraged to send Campagnola a WhatsApp message exposing the educators.

«When you have a populist authoritarian, militaristic ruler in that context, he isn’t just a laughing stock—as Trump often is—he is actually a very serious challenger to civil rights, and human rights and basic freedoms.» —Ivan Briscoe, International Crisis Group

Campagnolo, who was herself a history teacher before entering public office, claimed in a radio interview Tuesday that she had received numerous messages from students so far. Meanwhile, educators denounced her attack on freedom of expression or being what she derisively calls «indoctrinator teachers.»

As of this writing on Tuesday, a petition circulating on Avaaz.org, calling on teachers and students to reject Campagnola’s efforts, had gathered more than 265,000 signatures.

«We, teachers, understand that Ana Caroline is inciting hatred by asserting untruths, provoking an unhealthy school environment,» wrote the educators who started the petition.

Teachers «do not indoctrinate while teaching» but rather «present and promote debates with total respect respecting the free thought of students and the educational community in general.»

«In the face of this, we ask that you, a teacher, a student, parents who care for a free and democratic education share and help us denounce the attempt to curtail that teachers are already suffering for a candidate that even without having assumed is using authoritarianism to promote their ideas in a light and undemocratic way!» the petition continued.

Efforts to attack teachers» freedom of speech stoked fears of the new reality Brazilians will be living under after 55 percent of voters supported a man who has been called a «genuine fascist» by Brazil-based journalist Glenn Greenwald. Just before winning his election, Bolsonaro threatened to rid the country of left-wing politicians and their supporters, telling a crowd, «Either they go overseas, or they go to jail.»

Campagnolo’s campaign to target left-leaning teachers follows moves by government election authorities who, days before the country voted on October 28, seized election-related posters and other materials from university classes and events. The political activities ahead of the election were in violation of election laws, the authorities claimed, even though many of the materials made no mention of specific candidates and focused solely on defeating fascism.

Supreme Court Carmen Lucia ruled late last week that the seizure of political materials from universities was illegal, arguing, «Freedom of thought is not a concession made by the state. It is a fundamental right.»

But political observers have expressed fears since Bolsonaro’s victory on Sunday night that not only Brazil but other Latin American countries—especially those which, like Brazil, have been ruled by military dictatorships in years past—will experience serious curtailing of rights as the new president takes office.

«This is a guy who said the Brazilian dictatorship didn’t kill enough people, that they need to kill another 30,000 people, that the police should be able to kill suspects, that the left will have a choice of going to jail or leaving the country. Will he do these things? I think he will implement as many of these threats as he can get away with,» Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research told France 24 on Tuesday.

«When you have a populist authoritarian, militaristic ruler in that context, he isn’t just a laughing stock—as Trump often is—he is actually a very serious challenger to civil rights, and human rights and basic freedoms,» added Ivan Briscoe, Latin America director of the International Crisis Group.

Posta under Capitalism, Latin-Amerika, Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget