Opinion – Pike & Hurricane

The Case of the Mistaken Identity

Rozarina Bakher — Sat, 10 Jul 2021 17:20:16 +0000

During a recent Clubhouse room chat, I was reminded of an incident. I happened to be listening in on a conversation on “funny immigrant stories”. Shared were anecdotes such as, “my name is Mohammed, and I get stopped at immigration all the time” or “people assume I work in IT because I am from India”. This was mine: One summer afternoon in 2019, my friend and I were sitting in a bar in Copenhagen, chatting and having a merry time. She and I are both from Malaysia, and if I can give anyone any advice, it will be this. If you see Asians sitting in a group, please take a table over. This advice is well intended, as abroad our community is tiny, and we get really excited to speak in our mother tongue. So, do us a favour by taking a seat elsewhere, and do not hush us.

We were just sitting and talking until a Caucasian woman around mid-50’s asked if she could join us. Asians are polite creatures, so we agreed. We continued talking, and she asked us some questions and shared stories of her travels in Asia. Be mindful, the conversation was happening in English. We were having a lovely time and she seemed nice enough until she suddenly said to us “You ladies, should not come here and steal our husbands!”. Then she went on about Thai massage parlours and Vietnamese-run nail salons and how there are too many of these in Scandinavia. My girlfriend and I are both fluent Danish speakers, so at this point we switched to Danish as we suspected that she was, and we were right. I jokingly said, we are not aware which one is her husband as we do not have a directory of “who-is-whose” in our Asian community WhatsApp group. My girlfriend, who is older than me, told her to get off our table and some profanity was uttered.

I shared this story in the Clubhouse audio chat room, most of whom participating were immigrants or foreigners of Asian origins. The whole room roared with laughter, but a bittersweet discussion ensued. All of us have a shared story of how we are often accused of stealing something, be it jobs from the locals and now, other people’s husbands. And if we express our discomfort of being treated derogatorily in a foreign country, we all have experienced being told off: “If you don’t like it, why don’t you go back to your country!”.

Why do people migrate?

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) reported that in 2015, around 244 million people, or 3.3 per cent of the world’s population lived outside their country of origin. A more recent number from 2017, reported in The United Nations International Migration Report (UN DESA), estimated 258 million people are living in a country other than their country of birth. Both these reports stated that some of the reasons why people migrate are for the search of better economic and social opportunities.

The pursuit of better economic opportunities is cited as one common reason people migrate. Economic migration is defined as a choice to move to improve one’s standard of living by gaining a better paid job. When Poland and other Eastern European countries joined the EU in 2004, the UK received many economic migrants from this region. The Philippines have one of the world’s largest migrant workers abroad. Known as Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW), they are economic heroes of the country because of their significant contributions towards the growth of the Philippine economy. Remittances sent by OFWs accounted for 11% of the country’s total GDP in 2018. Overseas remittances from a migrant worker are important to a country’s domestic economy as it helps increase the purchasing power of the population i.e., the family members left behind. The remittances improve credit constraints on the poor, improve the allocation of capital, substitute for the lack of financial development and thus accelerate economic growth. Via these inward remittances as well, countries can maintain a stable foreign reserve.

The United Nations International Migration Report stated that when supported by appropriate policies, migration can contribute to inclusive and sustainable economic growth and development in both home and host communities. Remittances constitute a significant source of household income that improves the livelihoods of families and communities through investments in education, health, sanitation, housing and infrastructure. Countries of destination benefit significantly from migration, as migrants often fill critical labour gaps, create jobs as entrepreneurs, and pay taxes and social security contributions. Some migrants are among the most dynamic members of the host society contributing to the development of science and technology and enriching their host communities by providing cultural diversity. If economic migration has such a beneficial effect, shouldn’t host countries make an effort to increase the dignity of these groups?

Diversity and inclusion of economic migrants

According to an OECD report, in many European countries the integration of migrants means their assimilation into a pre-existing, unified social order, with a homogenous culture and set of values. Integration is perceived as a one-way process, putting the onus for change solely on migrants. In my experience, this is true for most countries, so I will not single out the European countries as being the only bad examples at making an equitable diversity and inclusive policies for economic migrants. One of which is the requirement to speak the national language to obtain employment. Many migrants such as myself have successfully learnt the local language, as this is something we see necessary for survival rather than merely an employment requirement. The trap here is when you do speak the language, you rarely become as fluent as a native. You might remain passive in a conversation, where you reply only when you are spoken to.

Of course, there are also social class differences within the economic migrants’ group. Many of my peers are what is known as ‘professionals’ and due to the mobility strategies of the companies we are working for, we are fortunate enough to experience lives as expatriates. At the same time, there are those who are in lower-skilled labour such as those employed in short-term projects, for example construction workers. As a norm, we are slightly better compensated than our local peers, but this is because often we need to budget trips home and pay for international education of our kids if the local school programs aren’t in English. In addition, rents are typically higher for those on temporary working visas. Perhaps it is because of aspects like these that it bums us out when we are accused of being a kind of pest or economic freeloaders by the natives of the host countries.

Positive reinforcements of economic migrants at national level

Back to my story on Clubhouse. What struck my girlfriend and I was that not once did the lady ask us where we came from. Not that it matters, the fact she insulted us like that was a xenophobic act itself. Often people are stereotyped and grouped together by assumed characteristics such as the colour of their skin and appearances. There is a notion that all Asian look alike, which is an annoying statement. We can be similar in appearances but vastly different in terms of the religion we practise or the language we speak. The socio-political situation of our home countries and the rights we are guaranteed differs significantly. As a Malaysian, I have significant political, economic, and social benefits that come with being a citizen of a progressive country. I can travel without a pre-approved visa to the Schengen area. Citizens of many of my neighbouring countries, such as Thailand and Vietnam, who according to prevailing stereotypes are “just like me”, lack this freedom. An absence of international immigration cooperation restricts them to travel freely, for instance to Schengen-countries.

For those groups of economic migrants who lack democratic representations at home, this migration is more than just an opportunity for better lives but also an opportunity to live their lives in freedom and safety. I salute these economic migrants as they migrate and become entrepreneurs by opening massage and nail salon centres, and in so doing creating employment and adding to the local economy through value added and service taxes for example. If any, they should be applauded, not be accused of being hoarders of the economy or husband-thieves. They should be recognized as a dignified human being for making an honest living. It is the task of the host country to create a positive representation of these economic migrants in the community at large, through positive conversations and images that will lead to change in the ways that locals view their participation and contribution to the local economy.

Related articles

Starting again in Your Own Country: The Peruvian Example

A game of chess at the Greek-Turkish border

Photo Credits:

By Marjan Blan on Unsplash

The post The Case of the Mistaken Identity appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Rights Won’t Cure a Pandemic

Maya Diekmann — Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:55:56 +0000

In recent months, human rights have experienced a rapid proliferation in public discourse. People are unusually concerned with the status of their fundamental rights—for a good reason. Few liberal democracies have witnessed such heavy-handed state intervention and liberty rights restrictions as in 2020.

Lockdowns infringe on the right to freedom of movement, strict distancing measures and gathering regulations on the freedom of assembly. Religious service is limited, hymns of praise are a big no-no in virus containment—restricting free religious practice. Not even the right to choose one’s employment is guaranteed where restaurants, theaters, and other non-essential businesses are forced to shut down.

As much as these restrictions might feel like a dictatorial rule to those privileged enough to have grown up in a liberal democratic society—who have not the slightest of ideas of what such implications even mean—it couldn’t be further removed from rights and freedoms as they work in practice. As much as some might want to equivocate their rights with a kind of untouchable, inviolable decree—human rights were never meant to play that role in the first place.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

“…born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Or so the fairy tale is told, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Granting humans rights merely on the basis of their existence as a human being is a fundamental underpinning of the Declaration. It is an ideal worth striving for but in practice, it could not be more problematic. It is no surprise that critical opposition to the notion of universality of human rights did not take long to arise after the Declaration first entered into force. With her essay The Rights of Man: What Are They?, Hannah Arendt launched what would become one of the most prominent critiques against the supposedly inalienable status of human rights. At the core of her critique is the critical question of how human rights are supposed to be universal, if their enforcement is conditional on the existence, willingness, and capability of the institutions of sovereign states to do so.

In short, and without granting Arendt the attention that she deserves, the answer to said question is: They are not universal. Not simply by virtue of existing. The respect and protection of human rights directly depend on citizenship and institutions, because rights—just like people—do not exist in a socio-political vacuum. They exist in a world divided into a map of sovereign states, holding societies to which people are assigned by birth. If one is lucky enough to be born into a state where democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights governs, one, along with everyone else born in that state, has fundamental rights.

Being a citizen of a liberal democracy is principally like being a member of an exclusive club. You pay your membership, vote for your board, and avoid violating club rules. In return you reap the benefits of being a member. As do others. This is essential to keep the club running. The problem with membership, and its connected perks and duties, is that there is a risk to forget about the conditions on which this whole association is founded in the first place: To gather together with a common purpose. In the case of liberal democratic societies this is to live together, peacefully under the law, and to equally profit from the fruits of human cooperation—including the guarantee of certain fundamental rights.

It doesn’t take much calculating to figure out that in a society where all the members lay claims to their rights, there is bound to be some conflict sooner or later. You cannot have every single member of society demanding their freedom without any external interference. The current pandemic is paradigmatic of this: Were the COVID-19 “freedom fighters” to have their way, and states were to lift all kinds of restrictions, they would infringe on the rights to life and good health—enshrined in Article 6 of the ICCPR and Article 12 of the ICESCR respectively—of other members of society. This is why the freedoms set forward in international human rights documents are usually understood as liberties. And although the terms are often used interchangeably, there exists a conceptual difference: While freedom denotes the ability to do whatever one wishes without interference, the latter refers to the ability to do something without arbitrary interference. Liberties are what is granted, guaranteed, and protected by national laws.

COVID-19 Anti-Lockdown Protest in Vancouver, May 3rd 2020

Of Lives and Livelihoods

Few human rights are absolute. Among them are the prohibition of slavery and torture. This means that these rights can never be “put on hold”. Not in war, where allegedly anything goes, not ever. Most articles in the International Bill of Human Rights, however, come with limitations. This means that in cases of national emergency, where public order or public health are threatened, these rights can be derogated from. As long as measures are based in law, are necessary and proportional to the threat, it is perfectly legitimate for a state to limit rights, such as freedom of assembly or freedom of movement.

For many in the “corona-resistance” movement, these measures are neither necessary nor proportionate. Falsely claiming SARS-CoV-2 to be little more than a flu virus, which poses no serious threat to a vast majority of the population, they demand an end of the tyranny that restricts their personal freedoms and threatens their livelihoods. And while it is correct that in most cases, a COVID-19 infection takes a mild course, it is equally correct that there is a certain part of the population which is much more likely to be seriously affected by the disease. But even to those that acknowledge this fact, the equation still seems straightforward: The lives of the few do not justify risking the livelihoods of the many.

One of the great features of human rights is that they protect minorities from the will of the majority. Just because those facing a serious risk from SARS-CoV-2 are outnumbered does not mean that they do not deserve a healthy and safe life. This is part of what characterizes the liberal democratic society that so strongly protects exactly those fundamental rights that some understand as their personal trump card in the current crisis. Those same rights are designed to work as a protective shield for all the others whose lives and health endangered are endangered.

It is easy to demand something that unlikely affects oneself negatively. The vast majority of lockdown protesters in the US are white, whereas those disproportionately affected by the virus are people of color. Conversely, in Germany, 93% of those aged 60 and older, people facing higher risks from the virus, have no sympathy for anti-lockdown demonstrations. Undoubtedly, many of those demanding the end of corona-measures are negatively impacted by them, some disproportionately heavily. Their entire existence is at risk because of government restrictions. This should by no means be downplayed. Neither should human rights in times of the pandemic. The point is that there is a difference between making oneself heard by participating in a productive socio-political debate, and obstinately chanting for some sort of personal freedom which was never there in the first place.

There is no easy solution to a crisis as multifaceted as the current one. In fact, one of the greatest challenges in handling the COVID-19 pandemic is that alleviating one crisis seemingly aggravates another. Where individuals find themselves in the crossfire of government crisis-response mechanisms, it is easy to clutch onto the one tower of strength that promises protection from the great sovereign: Human rights. But once the underlying dynamic of this symbolic narrative is taken into consideration, one thing becomes painfully obvious: Insisting on your personal rights won’t heal a sick collective.

Related articles:

The Swedish COVID-19 pandemic strategy or: The Comeback of the “Ättestupa”

Back from the borderlands: taming and framing COVID-19

Socially Progressive, Economically Conservative: What Does It Mean to Be Liberal?

Human Rights Crisis

Photo credits:

“COVID-19 Anti-Lockdown Protest in Vancouver, May 3rd 2020” by GoToVan is licensed under CC BY 2.0

The post Rights Won’t Cure a Pandemic appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Clash of the Titans – Public Figures against the Tech Giants

Julia Kavanto — Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:17:53 +0000

President Donald Trump of the United States of America became the first president to achieve many things. He was the first US president to be impeached twice, and his administration was the first to declare that China was committing genocide on Uighurs, but now I am talking about Trump being the first world leader to be permanently suspended from Twitter.

Trump supporters stormed the halls of the United States Capitol on January 6th, and their agenda was to stop the inauguration of Joe Biden. Soon after the coup, Trump’s Twitter account was first suspended for twelve hours, and then for good, as he continued to violate the community rules of the platform.

Multiple social media platforms followed Twitter’s example and suspended Trump’s accounts. We are having this discussion because permanently suspending a person of authority is considered a threat to the freedom of speech. The concern is valid. The common social media platforms, especially Twitter, are crucial to the hectic politics of the modern world; it is there where the political debate is the most heated. So, is it right to suspend a political leader permanently?

What is freedom of speech? What is it not?

Freedom of speech essentially means that any individual should have the right to express their thoughts and feelings without fear of sanctions. The right is universal, so it applies to everyone regardless of status, race, religion et cetera. There is a limitation to it, though. Freedom of speech should not be exercised to harm. A very important question to this is that who decides when someone or something has been harmed. One would think that the person who is harmed decides if they have been harmed, but then there is the question of people who cannot reply or, for example, non-human entities like nature. Who decides for them?

Twitter decided for the people who were injured in the coup of Capitol. Five people died in the attack, and Twitter understood President Trump’s tweet on the 8th of January about not joining President Biden’s inauguration was an invitation for his supporters to be violent. Trump’s use of words was interpreted as violating the platform’s glorification of violence policy.

Yes, Twitter can decide, and they did right to protect American citizens from further acts of violence. However, this does not mean that there should not be a more democratic way to decide. The board of Twitter who presumably called the shot to suspend Trump’s account was not selected democratically, and should not, therefore, have the right to take away the freedom of expression, even from Donald Trump.

On the other hand…

The Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny travelled back to his home country from Berlin where he was treated after having been poisoned in August 2020. Navalny was immediately detained upon his arrival on the 17th of January, and he soon posted a video on Twitter where he urged his supporters to “take it to the streets” because of his jailing. The protests were unauthorized, but successful, as the demonstration was organized in 100 Russian cities and there were 40,000 participants only in Moscow.

It is no surprise, then, that someone got hurt in the protests; Navalny must have known that the riots were unauthorized and would be met with violence. Videos show how the police are dragging people and using batons relentlessly. For the western democrat, it seems obvious that Navalny, Putin’s arch-rival, would not be banned for social media. That would be a victory for tyranny. But essentially, Navalny and Trump used Twitter for the same: for rallying supporters to protest against the government. It can be that Navalny’s tweets were not seen “to incite violence”, as Trump’s tweets were, according to Twitter’s blog post on Trump’s suspension. That, though, is problematic, that there is no universal guideline to fall back on.

Of course, Trump was not banned solely because of the tweet to join him on the 6th, but also because of the countless times he posted fake news on the platform. A certain president of Russia would argue that Navalny has also posted fake news, as the opposition leader recently uploaded a video to Twitter exposing Putin’s palace of corruption. Putin denies that the palace is his or any of his close relatives. The media in the United States seems to have agreed that Trump often tweeted lies. The same could be said about the Russian media breaking the news of Navalny’s accusations, as Pravda and Russia Today repeat Putin denying that the palace is his. American media agrees that Trump posted lies, and Russian media that Navalny posted lies, but the reception is very different.

There needs to be a universal guideline for social media usage, which states when a person has crossed the line of what is accepted. The board of directors of tech giants should not be the ones who decide who has the right to be heard. There are many questions regarding the universal guideline for social media that I am suggesting, such as who should be trusted to tell the truth i.e. who says what is “fake news”. Russian media argues against Navalny’s allegations of Putin’s Palace, but the allegations are still not put down by Twitter as lies.

Navalny joined the suspension discussion

Navalny himself responded to the suspension of President Trump negatively by saying that it “is an unacceptable act of censorship”. He says that Twitter’s decision to suspend Trump is based on personal political views. Therefore it can be said that the decision was not democratic. But does it even have to be in a private company? I think so, as they carry so much power in the public speech arena where freedom of speech is exercised. It is a slippery slope that Twitter has entered, as with permanently suspending Trump they open the possibility to suspend other people who do not follow the prevailing ideology. Silencing people is too great a power for any company to have.

No matter how much I disagree with Trump’s views, he, too, has the right to be heard. Imagine if Navalny was suspended. How radically would the Western world react to silencing the one figure who is against the all-mighty Vladimir Putin? In a democratic world, everyone needs to be heard, regardless of views. In a democratic world, everyone is treated equally, and with the universal guideline of social media usage, the same rules would be applied to everyone, regardless of power they possess.

Related articles:

Delusive Donald

The Social Network of Ethnic Conflict

Photo credits:

Tech/Book Special NRC Handelsblad, by Jenna Arts, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Freedom of Speech, by Vladan Nikolic, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

The post The Clash of the Titans – Public Figures against the Tech Giants appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Don’t Read The News

Eje Brundin — Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:00:39 +0000

This is a featured article from Pike & Hurricane’s partner magazine The Perspective of Lund University.

What is the state of the world today? Where have we been, where are we, and where are we going? Weapons of mass destruction, famine, climate crisis, asteroids hitting the earth, future pandemics, arms races, overcrowded refugee camps, super-volcanoes, fascism and alternative facts are only a few of the numerous problems that humanity faces. It can get overwhelming when trying to process all of this. However, the news tends to prioritize war over reality—when, in fact, humans are doing pretty well.

As a student of Peace and Conflict Studies at Lund University, I see patterns of polarization, violence, and the breakdown of states everywhere I look. Democracy is in global decline, rape is used as a weapon of war, nuclear arms deals are failing and social media is polarizing us into frightening bubbles of self-righteous, aggravating rhetoric. The problems are huge and complex, and affect people and families all over the world. Being hopeful is difficult, but let me help.

“Where cooperation has created death and destruction it is also the solution.”

When we see war and cruelty, there are deep patterns of cooperation that we tend to overlook. We read about war, murders, environmental degradation, and then think that human nature is greedy, selfish and cruel. However, when we say that the winners write the history books, we forget what made the writer a winner: human cooperation. You have a war? That is two or more sides, each one cooperating to win over the other. You have a nuclear bomb? It was created by scientists that cooperated through sharing knowledge. You have THE PERSPECTIVE in your hand? I am happy to say that we cooperated to get this delivered to you. Human cooperation is everywhere and we take it for granted. War and nuclear bombs are horrific things, but where cooperation has created death and destruction it is also the solution.

Cooperation is what makes humans unique. In the widely read novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding, the stranded boys slowly descend into chaos and are described to hold a beast-like quality in their human core. Rutger Bregman, a Dutch historian, found the real-life example of Lord of the Flies. It turns out six boys stranded on an island in Tonga constructively cooperated to survive for more than a year. One even broke a leg, and the others compensated to let their friend heal. Lord of the Flies is a good novel, but that’s all it is. In reality, we usually do better. We are the only species on the planet that can cooperate in large numbers with other unknown humans. This is an incredible advantage we have over other animals. Animals like wolves or monkeys can only cooperate in small numbers and not outside their circle or kin. Put ten million chimpanzees in Paris and you get chaos, but in the same space ten million humans manage to cooperate and co-exist. Human reality tends to lean toward cooperation and we see it in international politics, too.

Last year the United Nations celebrated 75 years of existence. It can be considered the pinnacle of human cooperation. It has served an instrumental role in creating peaceful international relations. States across the globe come together to discuss issues, to reach agreements and to ensure international peace. This inter-state organization has been an incredible success. Since its creation, there have been no superpower-wars. Let me say that again: there have been zero wars between superpowers while the United Nations has existed. This point might sound trivial, but oh, so important to make!

The existence of the United Nations is taken for granted today. According to Our World in Data, out of the world’s population in 2019, less than 8% is 65 years or older. This means that almost nobody alive today was of an age to witness and understand the creation of the United Nations. The pinnacle of human cooperation, to us, has always been there. Our standards of international relations and peace are very different than those who lived through the first and second World Wars. To put it into perspective, imagine instead what might have happened if there had been no United Nations at all during the Cold War. The UN has given the world the Laws of War and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and much more. Without it, wars today would be much worse than what they currently are.

This positive development is a slow and long-term one, but it is an important one. There is much data to support this worldview. Since 1945, global life expectancy has gone up, child mortality has gone down, hunger has decreased, access to electricity has gone up, democracies have increased, war deaths are decreasing, homicides are decreasing—I could go on and on. This has only been 75 years. If we instead look back 300 years, it is fair to say that humanity has progressed just fine. If you want to know more, look at all this data by yourself through Our World in Data.

Now, compare these hard facts to the news. Have you ever heard reporters say “Today 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty” every day for the last 25 years? The answer is no, despite this being a truth of global human development. Our human reality is a reality of positives and negatives merged into one world. You almost give up on humanity when you read the news, but that is because these slow, positive developments are not covered in popular media.

“Humans are not problem-oriented; we are solution-oriented.”

In exclusive correspondence with THE PERSPECTIVE, Dr. Steven Pinker, a cognitive psychologist, writes that “peace consists of nothing happening, which by definition is not news.” News media tend to follow the motto of “when it bleeds, it leads,” but reality is not a big pile of blood. To understand the world, you cannot only look at the news. When you look at countries at war, look at the countries at peace at the same time to get the whole picture. To be fair, the fact that the news media mainly covers problems and human suffering is a very constructive and cooperative act in and of itself as well. While being aware of the positive progress humans are making, you are also getting information about problems humans have to solve to improve human life even further.

Humans are not problem-oriented; we are solution-oriented. Dr. Pinker emphasized that by looking at data and seeing trends in the long-term, we can “muster the energy to reduce [war] further.” We learn from looking at what we did wrong in the past. We also learn by looking at what we are doing right, and it seems we have more to learn about what we’re doing right. It is difficult to process all the problems we face today, but it is because we are more aware and know more about all of our problems today. We are facing immense inequality, traumatizing wars and environmental crises. Alone, it can feel impossible to deal with it, understand it, and try to change it. Luckily, we are by nature experts at cooperating and in the last centuries we have (statistically) passed the challenge of progress with flying colors.

Featured image: Japanese Women Visit Lake Success, by United Nations Photo, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post Don’t Read The News appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Delusive Donald

Franziska Fink — Mon, 02 Nov 2020 12:42:00 +0000

The next time people start talking about Donald Trump, I want you to conduct a little social experiment. As soon as you hear the name of the current US president, try to observe the change in the face of the person you are talking to. You will inevitably notice how they roll their eyes, how a condescending smirk scurries over their lips or how they give an amused shake of their head. Maybe someone will point out Trump’s latest ridiculous statement or how particularly orange he looked the other day.

What started out as an absurd event as Trump won the 2016 election and moved into the White House, underwent a rough, yet somehow subtle adaptation period in which the world more or less came to terms with the former reality show star stepping into the role of the “leader of the free world”. Nonetheless, even after almost four years in the most powerful position that one can hold, Donald Trump remains nothing but a joke to many. So do the people who marked a cross next to Trump’s name in 2016. This is largely due to non-US media coverage in which the president is often depicted as a kid that happens to have its playground on the premises of the White House, and which correspondingly presents his supporters as irresponsible parents who, first of all, brought this child upon us and second, now fail to be strict and hold it accountable for its misbehaviour. Moreover, they even seem to be proud parents and actively encourage all of his actions.

A person consuming regular news outside of the United States is thus very likely to succumb to this image of Trump. Given the fact that US politics are seemingly far away from the average daily life of non-Americans, this person will probably be amused rather than concerned. This exact point is where it gets dangerous. When Donald Trump is seen as something to only laugh or sigh about, rather than as the most powerful man in the world, a critical space opens up between a perilous delusion and reality.

The Two Sides of the Medal

Within the medical field, delusions are a pathological state of mind, characterized by “fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence”. Unfortunately, politics are not as clear as psychological definitions when it comes to “evidence”. We tend to obey the fixed belief that Trump has failed as a president. This belief is fuelled by current news, which show the United States as a nation more polarized than ever; this became even more visible in the outbreaks of the “Black Lives Matter” protests and in Trump’s response of sending national troops to fight against their fellow citizens. Additionally, the coronavirus continues to rage across the country, having left more than 200 000 people dead. Yet there has still not been a clear strategy implemented on how to best fight COVID-19 under the Trump administration. All of this does not look too well on the president’s record, further reinforcing his image of
ineptitude for the office he holds.

Nonetheless, this is only one side of the coin. Its backside is characterized by a significant block of loyal Trump supporters who have the power to heave him into the Oval Office for yet another four years. It is not that they are uneducated or blind to the events which are tearing their country apart. They simply see other aspects as well. Even though political measurements like the “Trump-O-Meter,” which track the actual implementation of Trump’s election promises, show a fairly different image (49% of promises broken, 24% kept), in the eyes of the president’s supporters, Trump has delivered, nonetheless. His most famous promise, to build a wall at the border to Mexico (and make Mexico pay for it), actually never exceeded the construction of 170 km out of the 800 km promised, as Mexico did not pay a penny and Congress did not agree to its funding.

Most of the immigrants who try to enter the US illegally come from the very poor countries of Central America. Trump hence declared states like Honduras “safe countries of origin” and made Mexico oblige to secure its borders more strictly. Within a year, the number of illegally picked up immigrants saw a decline of more than 80%. A big success for Trump, and not the only one.

His campaign motto “America First,” was underpinned by various actions, for example the withdrawal of American troops from Germany or Syria. Likewise, Trump pressured NATO member states to “pay their bills” and insisted on a fairer distribution of the alliance’s costs. Before Trump’s presidency in 2016, the US share of NATO budget amounted to 72%. Yet, while NATO’s total budget grew over the last few years, the US share declined to 70%. With these actions, Trump reacted to a popular feeling which the majority of US citizens share, namely being taken advantage of by the rest of the world.

Another crucial topic under Trump’s presidency is the economy. Under Trump, the country’s economy was thriving. He cut taxes and requirements and, in the end, even Democrats had to admit that they were profiting from Trump’s economic policies. Moreover, unemployment rate dropped to 3.5%, the lowest value in 51 years.

An unexpected Twist – The Corona Virus

Many analysts claim that, if the Corona virus had not occurred, i.e. forcing the global economy to shut down and accounting for a decline of a stunning 4.8% of the US economy, then Donald Trump would certainly be re-elected. COVID-19 has added an unpredictable twist to that assertion, because all of a sudden, Trump has to prove himself as a determined leader in times of crisis. This worked out semi-optimally with Trump refusing to acknowledge the danger of the disease in the beginning, downplaying the pandemic, and doubting the effectiveness of wearing masks to help contain the spread of the virus. The situation got devastatingly worse, with Trump suffering from Corona himself. The realization of the Trump campaign that this pandemic could hinder the re-election of the incumbent led to a series of disturbing and, if actually implemented, dangerous threats to democracy.

To mitigate the spread of COVID-19, many Americans consider postal voting. Regarding Trump’s currently low approval ratings (42,6%) and the related expectation that many voters will thus vote for his opponent Joe Biden, Trump continuously insisted on how postal ballots will lead to voting fraud and even suggested a delay of the election. On top of that, he has not yet confirmed a peaceful transfer of power in case he loses. Since Trump has so far kept his word on his most important promises, chances are he will keep this one too.

All of these are worrying developments. The Democracy Report 2020, published by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg, actually measures global democracy based on hundreds of variables and has found the United States to be undergoing “substantial autocratization” in the Trump era.

Next time people start talking about Donald Trump, keep in mind that this man has the substantial support of loyal followers who embrace everything he says and does. Even when these words and actions are slowly turning one of the oldest democracies of the world into an autocratic regime. Do not succumb to the delusion that he is nothing but an angry orange joke which does not have to be taken seriously, but rather accept that he is a powerful president that tends to keep his word.

Related articles:

Tightening the Grip: Is Experience Necessary for a Successful Autocrat?

Photo credits:

Trump, by IoSonoUnaFotoCamera, CC BY-SA 2.0

Donald Trump with supporters, by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0

The post Delusive Donald appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The quarantine phenomenon

Ioana Pavel — Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:22:06 +0000

At a time when societal divisions seemed unequivocally pervasive, the world has stumbled into an equally unequivocal common tragedy. From those wealthy enough to seek refuge inside their yachts and private islands, to those sleeping on cardboard beds on the side of the road; from the northern icy lands to the musically-inclined south; uniting old foes, unwilling partners and lonesome souls, a virus is forcing all of humanity to stay inside wherever they might call home. A borderless, invisible force has overwritten and rendered everything that the world took for granted obsolete. Behind our windows, within our four walls, and within the walls of our minds, we are now all experiencing life from the standpoint of an imposed quarantine.

As adaptable as the human mind is to change, it is also change-averse. Having one’s way of life upended and constricted, rewritten by external, uncontrollable forces is gruesome. It is gruesome as experienced from a luxurious estate, it is gruesome from the confines of a shoebox-sized dwelling. It is gruesome for those who have lost their employment and lifelines. It is gruesome for those resting on a cushy savings account. As the world economy dwells in peril, humanity altogether looks ahead in common uncertainty. Whereas divisions such as class, race, gender and physical ability are now more forceful than before and clearly differentiate the manner and severity that each group will be impacted by the pandemic, this moment in history serves as an opportunity for the world to finally grasp a concept that has been touted for so long: that human beings are equal. While some groups are more likely to perish from the virus than others, for once, divisions are no longer segregated by borders. The world is, in a sense, united. United in grief, in vulnerability, in fear.

This unity is an opportunity to finally see the invisible, marginalized groups, which has long been too uncomfortable a thing to take into consideration. As distractions become increasingly unavailable, as the world watches the nightly news in despair at the growing number of cases and deaths reported, it is faced with a choice: to carry on blindly, and come out of this quarantine unchanged; or to open its eyes to the suffering of millions and take action. No human being on this planet is left without a task during this pandemic. While some are left without jobs, everybody is called to do their part. Some must put their lives at risk for the safety of others, some must walk the streets for the safety of others and some must stay at home for the safety of others.

Never before has the suffering of others been so widely reported and never before has the opportunity to help those in need been so widely available. As this borderless tragedy hits the world in its entirety, humanity has a chance to shift its tunnel vision to a more compassionate wide-angle view.

Photo Credits:

Quarantine, congerdesign

Solidarity, geralt

The post The quarantine phenomenon appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The political playlist of 2019

Elena Wasserzier — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:39:11 +0000

What‘s most significant about 2019? It is arguably the rise in demonstrations. People marching on the streets for their political aims and beliefs. Especially the “Fridays for Future” movement grew in it’s dimension and is still finding more and more supporters.

Alongside demonstrations, what is another important form of expression through which we can gain consciousness? Right: music. 2019 is characterised by many new political hymns that deal with the climate change and issues of their respective countries, mainly immigration policy and treatment and gun violence.

Climate Change and what we can do about it

1975 & Greta Thunberg: The 1975

In the self-titled song by The 1975, the band features Greta Thunberg giving a speech about climate issues and what will happen, if we do not change our policies regarding the climate. The track opens up slowly with accoustic piano chimes and amplifies with Greta Thunbergs intense monologue about the current climate crisis. While explaining the ongoing issues she foreshadows what is going to happen, if we do not protect our Earth and climate and the respective consequences, but still offers glimpses of hope. She encourages us to take action and “rebel” through protests and voicing our opinion so the political agenda changes.

“We are right now in the beginning of a climate and ecological crisis, and we need to call it what it is: an emergency. We must acknowledge that we do not have the situation under control… We must admit that we are losing this battle. We have to acknowledge that the older generations have failed. All political movements in their present form have failed, but Homo sapiens have not yet failed…We can still fix this. We still have everything in our own hands, but unless we recognise the overall failures of our current systems, we most probably don’t stand a chance…”

Lil Dicky – Earth

The charity single “ Earth” by Lil Dicky and numerous famous artists was discussed a lot by the broad public as it draws attention to the climate issue with its music video depicting each celebrity as a wildlife animal that will be endangered in the future, if we humans do not act against climate change ( e.g. Justin Bieber as a baboon or Ariana Grande as a zebra). The lyrics are somewhat controversial and ambiguous but basically just want to emphasise that those animals are endangered in their survival.

“What up, world? It’s your boy, just one of the guys down here. Well, I could be more specific. Uh, I’m a human, and I just wanted to, you know, for the sake of all of us earthlings out there, just wanted to say: We love the Earth, it is our planet/ We love the Earth, it is our home…“

Under the official YouTube video one can find a link to get more information on how to tackle climate issues, as well as measures to reduce your own carbon footprint and how to take action.

Our differences unite us

MARINA – To be human

“To be human” is a song by MARINA about trying to break down emotional walls between people, signifying that we are all the same and representing a longing for unity.

The music video offers a compilation of historic events worldwide and sequences of protests. It appeared on her LOVE+ FEAR album of 2019. Marina herself described it as the following:

“To Be Human is probably the most important song on this record for me, because thematically it sums up the head space that I’ve come from in the past 3 years. I think the subject matter is really important, it talks about unity. I name-check a lot of places around the world São Paulo, Verona, Angola, Chicago, Kyoto, Hiroshima, Greece. When I was writing that I wanted to create this picture of humanity, because in our political climate we are constantly being made to see other people as ‘other’. If you’re from a different culture, you’re seen as different and potentially dangerous and I really hate that. I really think that’s a sad way to see humanity. So I wrote this song really thinking about that, and for that reason it really forms a core part of the record.”

Furthermore the first verses and the chorus mention several places, their characteristics and culture.

“There were riots in America/ Just when things were getting better/ All the things I’ve done and seen/ Still I don’t know what life means

All the people living in, living in the world today/ We’re united by our love, we’re united by our pain (ooh)/ All the things that I’ve done and I’ve seen/ Still I don’t know, don’t know what it means.”

The song symbolises that even throughout our differences we should be looking at each other as the same, as humans.

Discrimination and gun violence in “the Land of the free”

The Killers – Land of the free

The song “Land of the free” by the American rock band The Killers is a political song, talking about many issues of the United States which is often referred to as the “Land of the free” because of the American belief that people are free and able to pursue whatever dreams they have, a patriotic slogan which is sarcastically apprehended by The Killers. Their stance on the US biggest issues, like gun violence and the hatred and reluctance towards immigrants is made very clear. The music video displays several scenes from refugee camps, protests and many people from Central America at the border.

Within the first verse front man Brandon Flowers explains that he himself is from an immigrant family, originally from Lithuania, who were seeking the american dream for which in order to make it happen they worked in coal mines.

The second verse rather emphasizes racial discrimination and comments on the different treatment of citizens in the USA. The song mentions how having a different skin colour affects you in everyday life gives examples of police violence in the American justice system and suggests that incarceration seems like a “big business” nowadays.

“When I go out in my car, I don’t think twice/ But if you’re the wrong color skin (I’m standing crying)/ You grow up looking over both your shoulders/ In the land of the free/ We got more people locked up than the rest of the world/ Right here in red, white and blue/ Incarceration’s become big business/ It’s harvest time out on the avenue”

Gun violence is mentioned by the musician through his utter sadness while asking “So how many daughters, tell me how many sons/ Do we have to have to put in the ground before we just break down and face it/ We got a problem with guns”

Furthermore he mentions the many issues of migration and how president Trump is aiming to build a wall at the border to Mexico. The constant repetition of the phrase “land of the free”, especially in the chorus, accentuates that America should be “the land of the free” as everyone should be able to live their American Dream. However, the core values, the USA was once based on are not anymore represented in “the land of the free”.

The front man Brandon Flowers said, he wrote the song in regard of the aftermaths of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 2012 and in regard to several recurring mass shootings, police brutality, injustice towards immigrants, thereby dishonouring the values the US was founded on and is supposed to act on.

Lana del Rey – Looking for America

Lana del Rey had a similar approach to discuss the Politics of the United States, specifically towards gun control and regulations. She wrote “Looking for America” as a direct response to two separate mass shootings, which led to 32 people dying on the first weekend of August 2019, one took place in El Paso, Texas and the other one in Dayton, Ohio.

She voices her dream of a better America, “one without the gun, where the flag can freely fly” and mass atrocities through guns are not happening anymore. She feels the constant fear of having to think twice before going to certain places and dreams of how it used to be when she was younger. She is melancholically dreaming about this notion of a gun free America.

“No bombs in the sky, only fireworks when you and I collide/ It’s just a dream I had in mind/ It’s just a dream I had in mind”

The arising of a new protest wave against political and global issues of atrocities and climate change?

A new wave of political songs in order to protest governmental actions and climate issues emerged. But we should not forget that music has always existed as a medium to express emotions and feelings, especially about social injustice and unfair policies. Take Bob Dylan´s “The Times They Are A- Changin´” or Tracy Chapman´s “Talkin´Bout a Revolution” as examples. And it is so important that it stays that way and that new artists come up with songs tackling current issues to make the broad public eye aware of certain issues. It does not get easier than raising awareness through 3 min long songs that everyone can listen to repeatedly.

by Elena Wasserzier

Photo credits:

Greta Thunberg in Paris, february 22th, stephane-p, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The Land of the Free, Kevin Spencer, CC BY-NC 2.0

Too late, Andrew Gustar, CC-BY ND 2.0

The post The political playlist of 2019 appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Dead or alive: on Punk and Anarchism

Kristina Bartl — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:12:13 +0000

Music and protesting have always gone hand in hand. Even Mozart once composed a six voice canon and titled it “Difficile lectu mihi mars et jonicu difficile”, which does not make much sense in Latin, but it sounds like “Kiss my arse!” in German. Why did he do it? Rumor has it that it was solely out of fun. Whilst this form of provocation is not the norm in classical music, there are certain genres that have always been a form of more serious protest. When Punk, a genre fueled by anger and disappointment in society, gained popularity, a new form of protest was born. In the 70s no one in the Rock or Punk scene questioned the necessity of the rebellion, whose soundtrack was provided by The Sex Pistols, Mötley Crue or The Clash. But nowadays, in the time of millennials and avocados, many claim that Punk is dead – for real this time.

Before making any assumptions regarding Punk’s extinction, it’s time to take a step back and remember its glorious early days. Until this day there are many different answers, when one asks for the origin of Punk. Some claim it came all the way from land of Down Under, others would bet their first born that Punk arose from an underground scene in the United States. And people like myself consider the United Kingdom as its origin. Regardless of where it came from, one thing is clear: Punk was the voice for and of the misunderstood and silenced members of society.

Contemporary Punk

Punk is is not a synonym for destructive behaviour or certain aesthetics and it never was supposed to be a specific style or even a particular sound. Punk was and is a rebellious act. When Refused, a Swedish hardcore-punk band, released their new album “War Music” this October the Punk scene welcomed the LP with open arms, because it satisfies its listeners’ nostalgia by taking them back to the early days of punk. The band also made a public statement regarding their latest release, which was full of empowering messages as: “[…] But we still believe that capitalism is cancer. And we still believe it can be cured. We still believe that the patriarchy is cancer. And we still believe it too can be cured. […]”. Even though, their most recent work is without a doubt an anarchistic and powerful piece of art, there are multiple other artists, who have kept Punk alive over the years.

In 2011, for example, a group of young Russian women formed a band called Pussy Riot and wrote protest songs against their politicians. In March 2012, three of those women got arrested for playing their music in front of a cathedral. If you think that their imprisonment for this so-called act of ‘hooliganism’ stopped the band from being vocal about politics, then you are absolutely wrong. Right after her release one of the band members, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, showed that not even a Russian prison can hold her back from being vocal about the political situation in her home country by shouting “Russia without Putin!” in front of journalists. Also the band’s musical protest has continuously been going strong, for example, in 2018 they published a song in protest against the upcoming Putin election that year.

The actions of Pussy Riot are an example of Punk in its purest form. But there are more Russian groups, who use their art to express their thoughts on, not only the Russian, but the worldwide political and social climate. One of them is Shortparis – a group that combines visuals, choreographies, experimental punk and electronic music. Contrary to Pussy Riot, they do not explicitly refer to Russian topics. The group is rather discrete in their lyrical message, but their music videos and live performances are full of powerful images. One could interpret some of the visuals as signs against neo-Nazism, toxic masculinity or social inequality. The band does not comment on those speculations and give their audience room for their own interpretation, because they would rather let their art speak for itself. In my opinion, their work is a balancing act between political and social matters, whilst their sound is flowing somewhere between hope and frustration.

Not only the Russian government inspires artists to articulate their anger. The American government, for example, has inspired the punk scene for years and especially one song became the sound for the protest against the country’s political situation. I am speaking of “American Idiot” by Green Day, which was not dedicated to the current president, but to one of his predecessors – George W. Bush – and yet, it still is as relevant in 2019 as it was at its release 15 years ago.

In the summer of 2018, when Donald Trump visited the United Kingdom, British Trump critics launched a campaign that hyped the song so much that it ended up in the charts during Trump’s stay in the UK. But also the members of Green Day themselves are very open about their opinion on the man in the oval office. At the 2016 American Music Awards the band’s front man Billie Joe Armstrong took the opportunity of having a large audience to express his disapproval by chanting “No Trump, no K.K.K., no fascist U.S.A.!” into the mic during their performance. Those were just some of the many examples of how Punk is being used as a form of protest in different variations.

A small pinch of Anarchism

Since Anarchism means questioning hierarchical systems of power, the overlap between left-wing supporters, anarchistic beliefs and the punk scene are undeniable. Hence, it is not surprising that the most popular Punk artists are rebelling against fascism, capitalism and right-wing politics. From the very beginning Punk has been an anthem for the ones who are fighting against injustice performed by the ones in power.

It should be clear by now, that being Punk does not have anything to do with throwing bricks at police officers or any other kind of vandalism. It is about questioning social constructs. Deciding to stand up against discrimination is just as Punk as rocking a Mohawk. And in a world that constantly tells you who to love and how to look like, simply embracing and loving yourself is Punk.

To come back to my main question: If one defines Punk as a movement run by people, who spend their days occupying abandoned houses, whilst listening to The Ramones, then yes, Punk has probably died a little and no, we might not be able to relive those days to their full extent. But if one defines Punk as a movement run by people who question the constructs of power and articulate their disappointment in society by creating art such as music then it is still very much alive.

by Kristina Bartl

Photo Credits

Boots, Galdramenn

Pussy Riot, Subterranean Chicago, March 7, 2018, Daniel X. O’Neil, CC BY 2.0

Fight Racism Fight Imperialism – Anti-Trump protesters start to gather in London’s Trafalgar Square, Alisdare Hickson, CC BY-SA 2.0

Protest 2, Pxhere

The post Dead or alive: on Punk and Anarchism appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Car-free city, carefree sustainability

Elena Wasserzier — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:19:11 +0000

An approach to the newly invented topic of banning personal cars in parts of a city like Barcelona or Paris and increasing a more relaxed and sustainable lifestyle, as well as regarding safety issues and reducing traffic jams. Less air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and in general a better quality of life.

Effects that affect

From the very start of our existence or let’s say, the past 100 years, mobility was one of the most important topics. Not only regarding motion, also in terms of status symbols and prestige. Automobiles were, and still are, symbols of wealth and, of course, a good vehicle to get from one place to another, get to work faster, in terms of travel and, in general, a fantastic way to accelerate life and at the same time, by saving time, decelerate it. We are left with this fact, that cars bring us faster to places, even though their emissions don’t work in their favor. We rely on them most of the time and could not fully imagine life without them. Still, by all means, we have to alter that. It is inevitable.

Climate change issues, the crisis we are facing right now, show us that we have to take action to seriously improve our situation and stop, or at least slow down, the process of the destruction of the Earth. What could be easier than giving up on cars? At least in big cities?

Cars basically block areas in towns for pedestrians and clog the streets. Long rows of parked cars hamper the field of view and driving cars, because they are so many in numbers, aggravate traffic, cause traffic jams, and bug everyone. People driving cars often come late to their jobs owing to accumulation of automobiles in the city they work in. Not only does it affect drivers, but also pedestrians and cyclists who have to stop at numerous traffic lights and be extra careful not to get run over.

Basically, the level of risk and the necessity of being mindful increases for everyone. Along with it, cars emit exhaust fumes, which cause tremendous damage to the environment. Another problem is the stress that honking and the constant passing of cars, cause to humans. Of course all these factors together greatly diminish quality of life in big cities because of air pollution, people getting stuck in huge traffic jams, and cars parked everywhere that block sidewalks and everyone’s view.

Californian car consumption disaster

We definitely have to change something about how our cities are created with more roads for cars than public transport, which can be perfectly illustrated by the heavily congested city of Los Angeles, USA. According to a rumour this city has more cars than people.

While that might not be entirely true, car density in Californian cities causes huge issues: traffic constipation, the air suffers from fumes and carbon monoxide, and due to over-crowding, less and less parking spots are available and, not to forget, also numerous accidents are caused. Therefore, we need new concepts to make the place we live in, our city, more livable and enjoyable.

Paris – taking alternate steps towards sparing the city from cars

In the capital city of France, attempts to lower automobile exhausts have been made and this eventually resulted in the concept of having the first Sunday of every month free of cars in the urban core of Paris from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

It all started with France’s effort to improve their international reputation regarding having the second worst air quality out of the largest 13 cities in Europe. Ever since, numerous restrictions have been imposed on vehicles. For instance, cars produced before 1997 are not allowed to enter the city center at any day of the week. Many more restrictions are planned to improve the pollution levels of Paris and clean up the air that Parisians breathe.

Malmö – biking preferred?

The city we live in, is a perfect example of a clean-aired and bike-friendly city which enhances the car-free lifestyle and improves the living conditions for its citizens.

In 2016, a major new success, the “Cykelhuset” or “bike house” opened up. It was created to encourage cycling in the city and it shows the will to diminish cars, as it is the first residential complex with no car parking spaces attached to it. The huge emphasis Malmö puts on biking naturally helps to keep the vibe of the city relaxed and pleasant. Moreover, it stands as a great example for a city that puts a huge emphasis on cycling to reduce car emissions.

Barcelona – the great pioneer

In exploring other successful concepts for city construction and efforts some governments are currently taking to make cities less loud, clogged and dirty, we have the example of Barcelona. In 2016, the city started closing off a three square city block to vehicle traffic in Poblenou (a working-class neighbourhood) reserving those streets for pedestrians and cyclists which immediately resulted in complaints made by motorists who felt offended by the fast change and tactics to lower car use.

However, soon people in the area started to realize that they had a nearly the double amount of space to play and walk and socialize with each other which resulted in resistance fading in other areas of Barcelona as well. Five more of these blocks have been created since, and Salvador Rueda, head of the “Urban Ecology Agency of Barcelona”, aims to implement 503 in total. Great emphasis is put on the idea that the citizens will reclaim the streets, hence the final goal is to turn over 70 percent of Barcelona’s streets to its people again. This project has drawn attention from all over the world ever since it has been implemented.

A new study, published in the journal “Environment International”, provides new evidence, supporting the idea that a car-free towns can deliver tremendous improvements in urban health. The Spanish and American scientists who developed the following statistical model to survey the potential outcomes of Rueda‘s street project for Barcelona, connected the known facts about mortality rates and exposure with health factors like traffic noise (and the stress it causes), air pollution, green spaces, physical activity and temperature and came to the conclusion that Barcelona could prevent over 600 premature deaths per year by conducting the “503-block plan“.

“The greatest projected decrease came from the reduction in nitrous oxide, a harmful tailpipe emission, followed by cuts in noise pollution and heat—all three the result of the big drops in vehicle traffic…“

Nevertheless, as urban populations compress and keep growing, vehicle emissions still rise in a vast number of countries. Barcelona presents a useful starting point for town planning in trying to win over the space for its people. Paris and New York City are just two of the global cities observing the Catalonian capital’s progress towards pedestrianization.

“Barcelona needs superblocks and other, complementary interventions designed to improve air quality, promote physical activity and tackle climate change,” Natalie Mueller, a researcher at Barcelona Institute for Global Health, proclaimed this statement during a press release. “We urgently need a paradigm shift away from the car-centered urban planning model and towards a people-centered approach”.

Pavement of the trail?

So after all, we are finally taking small steps towards improvement of the environment and of people’s health. Less vehicles in a town eases stress and unhealthy exhaust fumes, ultimately resulting in increasing the very lives of every citizen and everyone who visits the city. The more cities alter their town policies to more eco-friendly alternatives, the more they will present an alternate paradigm for the rest of the world. Just like the butterfly effect.

Written by Elena Wasserzier

Photo Credits

LA Traffic, Aaron Goodwin, CC BY-ND 2.0

carfreeday-2008 , Spacing magazine, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Setmana i fira de la mobilitat sostenible, Paula Pérez i de Lanuza, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

The post Car-free city, carefree sustainability appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

A voyager and a settler: West Papuans protest for freedom

Naufal Rasendriya Apta Raharema — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:17:36 +0000

Security means something different to different people. This specific argument can also be seen in the recent conflict in West Papua between the large numbers of locals demanding independence and the Indonesian authorities. Several deaths and injuries have been the result of never-ending tensions, including in the latest series of protest that started in mid-August this year.

History of the Long Voyage

Historically, Papua used to be a colony of the Netherlands which was then incorporated into Indonesia in 1969 as a result of the “Act of Free Choice”. Despite the fact that the UN also reaffirmed and accepted Indonesia’s sovereignty over Papua, high politics between Indonesia and the West can be argued to have been behind this whole event. The process itself was considered as very controversial due to the fact that the US-backed “Act of Free Choice” only consisted of 1,025 West Papuans who are handpicked by the Indonesian government. Adding to this, they were forced to vote to be controlled by the Indonesian government, at the gunpoint of Indonesian army. Allegations of human rights violations started to grow since that date.

Since then, the fight for freedom took flight for several reasons. In the highlands, the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM) forces, the Papuans independence fighters, have continuously launched guerrilla attacks on the Indonesian police and army. Meanwhile, there are also several NGOs that have voiced the desire for independence of the West Papuans through diplomatic talks and several non-violent actions, both in Indonesia and abroad, including the United Nations.

Never-ending Discrimination and Prejudice

Since mid-August, protest rallies, some of which turned violent, took place in several cities in Indonesia. These rallies demand that the West Papuans would be given the rights of self-determination to become independent as well as condemning the racism against the Papuans. These rallies actually were triggered by a racist incident in Surabaya.

In Surabaya, the student housing of the Papuans was surrounded by people protesting due to the alleged disrespecting of the Indonesian flag. Among the angry masses were also Indonesian soldiers and nationalist groups; actors that are anticipated to always be there when the issue is related to nationalism. Unfortunately, racial slurs were also used by the masses to demand the Papua students to come out from their housing. A viral video showing that the security officers surrounding the student housing were mocking the students with racial slurs was later spread. It was this specific case that sparked all the outrage in Papua.

Basically, racism and prejudice towards the Papuans are very common in Indonesian society. The physical differences, as the Papuans are Melanesians who are very different from most Indonesians, and all the stereotypes that have been there for years may be the main reasons here. In the neighborhood, Papuans who are studying outside Papua often have a hard time living their student life.

For instance, a lot of locals would offer housing to students, except for Papuans due to the stereotype that they like to get drunk and cause trouble. Hence, they can’t receive the best educational outcomes. As it is difficult for them to find housing and they generally choose to live in the Papua’s students housing, sticking with other Papuans to make them feel safer. Still, a circulating prejudice, that they have such a secret activity associated with the Free Papua Movement inside the student housing, prevails.

Added to this, the fact that the Indonesian police decided to “let” the other organizations and angry masses surround the Papuans Student Housing in Surabaya, including all the racial slurs that took place, can also be seen as an example of the never-ending prejudice and racial discrimination within the society. No deeper investigations were done by the police before they decided to surround the premise, coercing students to comply under threat of tear gas. In fact, all 43 students that were arrested from the housing were freed the next day as the police couldn’t find any evidence about the alleged disrespect of Indonesian flag.

In this case, Prof. Ariel Heryanto argues that Indonesia is moving backwards into the colonial era with its aggressive and masculine style of nationalism, called hypernationalism. Quite similar to facsism, there are people who are overly idolizing certain symbols including the angry mob who came to the Papuans student housing because of an alleged disrespect of Indonesian flag.

Hence, why would you demand a group of people to stick with you, yet you can’t treat them equally and humanely?

Nationalism?

From this point, it can be understood that what the Indonesian authorities want is to implement the third principle of Pancasila, Indonesia’s ideology, the unity of Indonesia. Not only in Papua, a lot of separatism movement in Indonesia, such as those that occurred in Aceh, has always been solved by military measures. Jakarta perceives the Free Papua Movement, whose goal is to achieve the rights of self-determination for the Papuans, as a separatist movement which may disturb the structure and unity of the archipelago country. In fact, a demand to be given the rights of self-determination shouldn’t be regarded as an act of treason. Yet, anything linked to an independence movement in certain areas such as Free Papua Movement may be sued by Indonesia with the crime of treason.

Non-violent protests, which are also quite commonly held in several cities, are also usually disbanded by the security forces. Hence, it seems that Indonesian authorities forgot about the fourth principle of just and civilized humanity. One of the reasons why there are tensions is because the Papuans accused the Indonesian military as human rights violators, matched with all the circulating arguments about a huge number of human rights abuses in Papua.

Nevertheless, people might have a high probability of being accused of treason if they decided to speak out against the inequality and abuses in Papua. In fact, a lot of human rights and pro-democracy activists have been arrested and prosecuted due to their involvement in spreading the messages. One of them is Veronica Koman, a popular human rights lawyer, she got labelled as a suspect for spreading false information and provoking bigger protests through social media. On the 20th of September, Indonesian police issued a red notice to Interpol for her, as well as her name on the wanted persons list.

During these series of protest, the President of Indonesia, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, said that “you may get angry, but forgiving is better” as he urged the people to forgive each other as the same citizens of the country. For some people, this was a very disappointing move from the President as it doesn’t sound helpful at all, especially as Jokowi won 78% in Papua during the Presidential Election. In this case, Jokowi should put more focus on respecting human rights in the region, including giving punishment to those involved in the racism and discrimination against the Papuans. True actions would be more appreciated rather than just ‘apologizing’.

The Danger of Inequality

As of now, the tension has significantly reduced and the situation has gotten better. Tri Susanti as one of the highest members in FKKPI, an organization that has linkages to the Police Department, has been enacted as the suspect of the racist incident in Surabaya. Added to that, 5 members of the Indonesian military have also been suspended for future investigation due to their alleged involvement.

Hence, I think it is very clear that even the smallest act of racism, distinction between us versus them, and unequal treatments may lead to the breakdown of national integrity and harmony in the social life if they are not treated wisely. The long period of discrimination faced by the Papuans in various areas is now known by the whole world.

Written by Naufal Rasendriya Apta Raharema

Photo Credits

West Papua Morning Star Flags, AK Rockefeller, CC BY-SA 2.0

“West- Papua-demonstrations”, Apdency, CC BY-SA 3.0

The post A voyager and a settler: West Papuans protest for freedom appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.