Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza

Unpack humanitarian intervention.

An image of a U.S. Marine cradling an Afghan baby went viral last week (Business Insider). Alongside pictures of desperate families pressed up against razor-wire fencing, it is one of the most striking visuals of a calamitous American retreat (The Guardian). Americans saw these horrifying images alongside articles analyzing the dire prospects for Afghan women (Newsweek) and LGBTQ+ people (BBC), increasing pressure on Biden to extend an August 31 evacuation deadline (MSN). The United States harmed civilians in a 20-year occupation and then abandoned them in its evacuation. To refuse civilians and their children would be a moral catastrophe, but plunging a nation into civil war with devastating civilian casualties is already the opposite of humanitarianism.

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

By Andrew Lee (he/him)

An image of a U.S. Marine cradling an Afghan baby went viral last week (Business Insider). Alongside pictures of desperate families pressed up against razor-wire fencing, it is one of the most striking visuals of a calamitous American retreat (The Guardian). Americans saw these horrifying images alongside articles analyzing the dire prospects for Afghan women (Newsweek) and LGBTQ+ people (BBC), increasing pressure on Biden to extend an August 31 evacuation deadline (MSN). The United States harmed civilians in a 20-year occupation and then abandoned them in its evacuation. To refuse civilians and their children would be a moral catastrophe, but plunging a nation into civil war with devastating civilian casualties is already the opposite of humanitarianism.

In 2001, 80% of Americans supported invading Afghanistan (Gallup). In recent years, Afghanistan faded from front-page news. This May, Americans largely felt the war was no longer a “hot-button issue,” with a plurality in favor of withdrawing troops (Gallup). In July, only 46% of Americans felt the invasion and occupation wasn’t a mistake (Gallup). But pictures of soldiers with babies circulating along with a newfound concern for Afghan civil rights caused support for the withdrawal to plummet (Yahoo News). Though accepting adult refugees remains controversial (Media Matters), many clamor to adopt refugee children (Today). Admitting Afghan children, if not their parents, might suggest the war truly was a humanitarian intervention.

In reality, the American government had its own reasons for its invasion of Afghanistan twenty years ago (Common Dreams, Small Wars Journal) and the admittance of children today. This use of children to justify war is personal to me as someone adopted from Korea, a country which likewise started sending children to the U.S. after an American occupation and war. Countries that send children to the United States are often in tatters as a result of the American government’s actions. During the Korean War, American forces deforested nearly the entire peninsula with napalm (Truthout). Some women survived by having sexual relations with American occupying forces. Their mixed-race children were the first Korean American adoptees (USA Today).

This created “a paternal attitude between Korea and the US where white Americans rescued Asian orphans, while concealing the US responsibility in the Korean War” (University of Minnesota). Adoption from South Korea is one of the ways in which “the war lives on as a material fact” (The New Inquiry). White America has long used adoption to “civilize” “savage” children of color (Twitter) while obscuring its role in creating the conditions that force desperate parents to give up their children in the first place. Today, the Biden administration continues to maintain family separation policies (Phoenix New Times) that break up families who cross the U.S.-Mexico border while thousands of “unaccompanied minors” are incarcerated in Border Patrol jails (Fox 10). The United States government isn’t a selfless benefactor for Korean, Central American, or Afghan children.

The U.S. government justified its invasion of Afghanistan as retribution for 9/11 but also, paradoxically, a war to liberate Afghan women from gender oppression. But the United Nations estimated 100,000 Afghans (NBC News), the equivalent half the population of Salt Lake City, were injured, maimed, or killed, often by the American military (Democracy Now, New Yorker).

All of this begs the question: if the protection of Afghan women, children, and sexual and gender minorities was the reason for the occupation, where was this concern before? Where was it when U.S. airstrikes were levelling neighborhoods earlier this month? Did the CIA ask whether detainees were part of the LGBTQ+ community before torturing them in black sites (IBT)? Was the U.S. government concerned with the well-being of children as it extrajudicially murdered their parents (Human RIghts Watch)? There is no such thing as a humanitarian war. Governments wage war to protect their own interests. There is never anything humane about mass death. One does not have to endorse all — or any — of the actions of a foreign government to oppose bombing its citizens “back to the Stone Age” (History News Network). To claim that destroying a country is a charitable act on behalf of that country’s most marginalized members is depraved.

Children cut off from their families and cultures in the wake of war are not a political symbol but a human tragedy. The U.S. is complicit in the splintering of families, not their savior. Our government has a responsibility to resolve the harm we’ve caused.

Key Takeaways

  • The U.S. military committed numerous human rights abuses during a fruitless occupation of Afghanistan that plunged the country into civil war.

  • The “humanitarian” adoption of children has long been used to whitewash brutality.

  • The U.S. responsibility to Afghan people comes not from its benevolence but its role in destabilizing the country.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More
Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza

Understand intervention.

Last month saw large demonstrations in Cuba against food and medicine shortages resulting from both “the COVID-19 pandemic and U.S. sanctions” (CNN). Some participants demanded the resignation of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel in heated protests where police deployed tear gas and some demonstrators threw rocks and overturned a police car. Many in the United States have rallied behind the slogan SOS Cuba to demand the American government do something, and in late July the U.S. government increased sanctions against the island (PBS).

TAKE ACTION

  • Learn why Black Lives Matter opposes the embargo on Cuba and help take action to end it.

  • Confront irresponsible calls for military invasion as a way to “help” other nations.

  • When considering proposed U.S. interventions, consider: What would the impact of sanctions or military actions be on everyday people, including those protesting? How might the proposed actions align with U.S. interests? Do U.S. policies create current poor conditions in the country?

GET EDUCATED

By Andrew Lee (he/him)

Last month saw large demonstrations in Cuba against food and medicine shortages resulting from both “the COVID-19 pandemic and U.S. sanctions” (CNN). Some participants demanded the resignation of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel in heated protests where police deployed tear gas and some demonstrators threw rocks and overturned a police car. Many in the United States have rallied behind the slogan SOS Cuba to demand the American government do something, and in late July the U.S. government increased sanctions against the island (PBS).

Police violence against protestors is an unacceptable tactic used by repressive governments around the world. Fighting protestors with tear gas, a weapon banned by the Geneva Conventions (USA Today), is cause for condemnation whether it’s on the streets of Havana or Portland, Oregon (NPR). It’s natural that people around the world wish to stand with the Cuban people.

But solidarity is getting twisted into something more sinister. One surefire way to release tensions on the island would be to end the U.S. embargo. U.S. law prohibits American companies from doing business with Cuba. It punishes foreign companies who do business with Cuba. The embargo prevents Cuba from importing food production equipment and medical supplies, creating the conditions that started the protests (Al Jazeera). In June, 184 U.N. member states voted to condemn the embargo. Only Israel and the U.S. voted against (U.N.). But when American journalists and leaders talk about supporting the Cuban people, ending the embargo isn’t on the agenda.

Instead, we’re told that this is a “golden opportunity” for President Biden to “preside over the liberation of Cuba” (Local 10). But the people in the streets aren’t clamoring for a military invasion. As with protest movements in the United States, protestors have a variety of goals. Some want immediate remedies. Others support more wide-ranging reforms. Some dissidents don’t want capitalism but are instead trying to push the Cuban government to the left in favor of “socialism done from below” (Dissent). But U.S. reporting focuses almost exclusively on voices in favor of capitalist reforms.

And selective, self-interested support of certain Cuban protestors to the exclusion of others goes beyond reporting. Since 2017, USAID, a government agency partnered with the U.S. military (USAID), has funneled over $67 million to Cuban dissidents (Cuba Money Project), continuing a long history of American interference. In 1912, U.S. soldiers suppressed Afro-Cuban protests for racial justice (BBC). In the 1950s, U.S. companies controlled 90% of Cuban mines, 80% of utilities and railroads, and almost half the nation’s sugar fields. “In return, Cuba got hedonistic tourists, organized crime, and General Fugencio Batista,” the U.S.-supported autocrat who ruled the country (Smithsonian). After the Cuban Revolution, when the government nationalized American companies profiting off of the island, the U.S. launched the current devastating blockade.

If the U.S. had a sincere commitment to human rights in Cuba, it could end the embargo that cuts off much-needed supplies. It could close the torture camp it runs on the island, the Guantánamo Bay Detention Center. The U.S. could immediately do these on its own, but unlike regime change, they would not be in the U.S. government’s interests (CODE PINK).

There are human rights abuses happening in countries around the globe, including our own. France continues to pass discriminatory laws against hijab-wearers with almost half of the country considering “Muslims a threat to national identity” (Time). The United Arab Emirates incarcerates citizens for peaceful political speech and “bans political opposition” (Amnesty International). Torture is “widespread” in Kazahsztan (Amnesty) while dozens of municipalities in Poland have declared themselves “LGBTI-free zones” (Amnesty). All of these countries are strong U.S. allies. Human rights only seem to be a frontpage story when they occur in countries the U.S. government already opposes.

Cuba, and other countries the U.S. targets, have real problems. Their citizens, like those of any nation, have legitimate reasons to protest. But when we hear that the American solution is immediately to “liberate” them, we should ask if an agenda was in place long before. We should recall what happened after “liberation” of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. There were problems and protests in all three of these countries. But it’s hard to believe that many Iraqi, Afghani, or Libyan protestors found their lives better post-invasion. The U.S. government only ever cynically deployed concern for their residents’ well-being to justify actions that made it much worse. The purpose of the State Department or Pentagon isn’t to promote solidarity. It’s to promote the interests of the U.S. government and American corporations.

When we reject their self-interested war plans, we can begin to choose real solidarity, instead.


Key Takeaways

  • Cuban protests have led to calls for America to “liberate” the island.

  • The U.S. in fact created the main reason for the protests, food and medicine shortages, through an embargo condemned by almost every nation in the world.

  • We hear much more about human rights abuses in countries the U.S. government opposes than countries it counts as allies.

Read More
Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza

Recognize U.S.–sponsored brutality.

Israeli settlers are trying to evict Palestinian families from homes in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. “Since 1967,” says Amnesty International, “it has been the policy of successive Israeli governments to promote the creation and expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories” (Amnesty International).

Happy Wednesday and welcome back! The ongoing crisis in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories has dominated the news cycle this week. Calls to acknowledge both sides often ignore the gross power imbalance at play, and the U.S.'s complicity in the violence. Today, Andrew outlines the role of the U.S. in the brutality.

​
​Thank you to everyone that gives a little when they can to keep this newsletter going! If you can, consider giving $7/month on Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website or PayPal. You can also support us by joining our curated digital community. This newsletter will continue to be a free resource because of this collective support.
​
Nicole

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

By Andrew Lee (he/him)

Israeli settlers are trying to evict Palestinian families from homes in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. “Since 1967,” says Amnesty International, “it has been the policy of successive Israeli governments to promote the creation and expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories” (Amnesty International).

​

Israel, like the United States, is a settler-colonial state, in which the inhabitants of a territory are killed or expelled by settlers who create their own society on the same land (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs). The foundation of the State of Israel saw the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people.
​

In the last two decades, dozens of Palestinian families have been evicted from the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood alone. But the current attempted expulsions led to a huge wave of Palestinian opposition.
​

Far-right Israelis chanted “death to Arabs” at counter-protests, and the Israeli military stormed Al Aqsa Mosque, beating and shooting sniper rounds at those inside (Al Jazeera). When groups in the Gaza Strip launched rockets at Israel, the Iron Dome missile defense system shot down 90% of them. “Israel is the vastly more powerful player,” says the BBC. “Its air force, armed drones and intelligence-gathering systems enable it to strike targets in Gaza pretty much at will” (BBC).

​

Israeli airstrikes are now leveling buildings in Gaza, an impoverished region mostly inhabited by descendants of Palestinians whose families were forced out by the new State of Israel after the 1948 Arab-Israel War. Many live in refugee camps to this day (History). The Gaza Strip has high unemployment, inadequate water and sewage, and suffers from Israeli sanctions that block imports of resources like food supplies (Britannica). At least three high-rise buildings were destroyed by airstrikes last Wednesday alone. “There is nowhere to run, there is nowhere to hide. That terror is indescribable,” said a pharmacist whose apartment building was obliterated (AP News).

​
Violence is, of course, deplorable in general. But those liberal politicians and celebrities who merely condemn such violence “on both sides” miss two crucial points.

​

First, Israel is a settler-colonial nation-state immeasurably more powerful than its opponents. It was the more powerful party which started the current cycle of violence by supporting the eviction of families from land it occupies by force. Those dispossessed and displaced are organized into several opposition groups, all with significantly less capacity to inflict military damage than the Israeli state.

​

Second, when American leaders condemn “both sides,” they make it seem as if the United States were a disinterested party. But the U.S. is firmly aligned politically with Israel. In fact, the U.S. is Israel’s chief benefactor, providing both weapons and with international cover for the occupation. A 2018 UN Security Council resolution denouncing Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians would have passed had the U.S. not been the one member to vote against it (Reuters). The U.S. gives Israel over $3 billion each year in weapons, weapons which today are detonating in the Gaza Strip (U.S. State Department). On Monday, the Biden administration approved $735 million in precision-guided weapon sales to Israel (Washington Post). The day before, an Israeli airstrike destroyed the building containing the office for the Associated Press as the death toll in Gaza climbed to 148 (MSN). That same day, the United States stood alone in blocking a United Nations resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire between all parties involved (MSN).

​

There are many reasons for the United States’ uniquely strong support of Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which lobbies for near-unconditional American political and military support of the country, brags of being the most influential lobbying group in Washington (New Yorker). Some evangelical Christians cynically support Israel out of a belief that Jewish control of the Holy Land is necessary for Jesus Christ to return and initiate the literal end times from the Book of Revelation (Belief Net).

​

The strength of pro-Israel sentiment in the U.S. government and vigorous efforts by Israeli politicians to ensure continued U.S. support do not mean that Israel alone controls the United States’ every move, a false idea connected to anti-semitic paranoias about all-powerful Jewish conspiracies. The United States is a superpower. Israel, the size of New Jersey, depends on U.S. weapons sales and international support. Thanks to American military aid, Israel is the most heavily armed country in a region whose location and natural resources are important for U.S. state interests (Observer). Arming and defending Israeli apartheid allows the American government to exert influence in a region thousands of miles away. “Were there not an Israel,” Joe Biden said in 1986, “the United States would have to invent an Israel to protect its interests” (Politico).

​

According to Human Rights Watch, the Israeli government committed crimes against humanity even before the current attacks (Human Rights Watch). The political, economic, and military support offered by the United States makes the U.S. government an active agent in these crimes. The residents of the United States have exponentially more power to fight for an end to Israeli apartheid, displacement, and aggression than anyone else in the world. “The size of the global solidarity has angered the [Israeli] occupation government,” said Sheikh Jarrah activist Muna al-Kurd. “I believe in popular resistance” (Al Jazeera).

​
U.S. support for international oppression is nothing new. In 1973, the U.S. helped overthrow democratically-elected Chilean President Salvador Allende’s government and its replacement by an authoritarian “reign of terror” under Augusto Pinochet (NPR). During the Salvadoran Civil War, the U.S. gave military training and $4 billion in aid (Britannica) to a government that tortured and slaughtered civilians, including the entire population of a village called Mozote (Huff Post). Today, the U.S. provides “defensive support” to a Saudi-led war in Yemen that has created conditions the United Nations describes simply as “hell” (Vox) (United Nations).

​

It is a political and moral responsibility for us to ensure our atrocities aided and abetted by our very own government are put to an end.

​

Recognize and resist U.S.-sponsored brutality.

Key Takeaways

  • After attempting to evict Palestinians from occupied East Jerusalem, Israel began airstrikes against Gaza, flattening residential buildings and killing civilians.

  • Even before these attacks, Human Rights Watch declared that Israel was committing crimes against humanity.

  • Israel has many times the military power of its adversaries. 90% of rockets fired from Gaza were shot down by its missile defense system.

  • Israel depends on political, economic, and military support from the U.S., which provides $3 billion in weapons sales every year.

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More
Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza

Demilitarize local law enforcement.

If you’ve participated or watched protests unfold in cities across the country this past year, you may have noticed that law enforcement looked more like members of our military than neighborhood police. And that’s intentional, as, over the past decades, the U.S. has made it easier for law enforcement to access surplus military equipment for everyday use.

Happy Friday, and welcome back! Last week, Andrew's article on the role that militarism plays to reinforce racism and oppression seemed to resonate with readers. Today looks like one of the many ways our military directly influences our local law enforcement.

​
This newsletter is a free resource and that's made possible by our paying subscribers. Consider giving $7/month on our website or Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website or PayPal. You can also support us by joining our curated digital community. Thank you to all those that support!
​
Nicole

TAKE ACTION

  • ​Send a tweet to President Biden and White House Officials encouraging the end of the 1033 Program.

  • ​Email your Congressperson to get the Breathe Act introduced in Congress, which, in part, calls for the end of the 1033 Program.

  • ​Check to see what your local agency received from the Department of Defense. Note: This data is from 2014, but I found it to be interesting nonetheless.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)

If you’ve participated or watched protests unfold in cities across the country this past year, you may have noticed that law enforcement looked more like members of our military than neighborhood police. And that’s intentional, as, over the past decades, the U.S. has made it easier for law enforcement to access surplus military equipment for everyday use.
​

Law enforcement can gain access to military equipment in a few ways: they can buy it outright or apply for grants (The Marshall Project). But a more straightforward way is to request supplies directly from the military through a program called the 1033 Program. Through this, recipients can receive the equipment at no cost, minus the shipping/transportation fees, making it an easy way to snag high-budget items. Some of the qualifying equipment is harmless, like exercise equipment and musical instruments (The Marshall Project).

​

But it also includes high-grade weapons, machinery, and vehicles designed for combat, not community safety. Equipment has been granted to sheriffs, parks and recreation agencies, and even schools: as of 2014, at least 17 school districts have been given hundreds of weapons, including rifles, shotguns, and grenade launchers (The Marshall Project). It’s also been distributed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, subjecting the southern border and its community to unnecessary, excessive police militarization.
​

Since its start in the 90s, over $7.4 billion worth of property has been transferred through the 1033 Program (Visual Capitalist). And according to the Institute for Transparent Policing, one in three local law enforcement agencies currently have military gear through the 1033 Program, ranging from machine guns to armored vehicles to robots (ITP).

​

Law enforcement often uses this equipment against its civilians during protests and demonstrations. In 2015, the militarized response to the protests of the death of Michael Brown brought this to the forefront: protestors were attacked with sniper rifles, armored vehicles, and tear gas used by law enforcement (ACLU). In 2015, President Obama signed an executive order restricting the militarization of police. But this was rescinded by the Trump administration in 2017 (EJI). Former President Trump publicly approved the use of military-grade weapons by law enforcement, encouraging them “don’t be too nice” to “these thugs.” Since then, over half a billion dollars of surplus military equipment has been obtained by local law enforcement (USA Today).

​

The protests from last summer only underlined how fatal militarized responses can be for our community (Axios). And just this past month, military-grade equipment was present at protests around Minnesota, both due to the death of Daunte Wright and the close of the Derek Chauvin trial (Vice). All of this is separate from *actual* military presence in cities across the country. Interested in learning more? Listen to this NPR Fresh Air podcast episode with Radley Balko, author of Rise Of The Warrior Cop.​
​

Studies prove that this excessive use of weaponry doesn’t keep cops safe, nor do they deter violence (Nature). In fact, it makes law enforcement more dangerous. Another study found that, when equipped with military equipment, law enforcement would adopt more militaristic habits, like “using military language, creating elite units like SWAT teams, and becoming more likely to jump into high-risk situations” (Washington Post). Civilians are most likely at risk: the increased militarization of a law enforcement agency directly correlates with more civilians killed each year by police. In addition, civilians are more likely to be harmed during situations where military-grade equipment is utilized (NBC News).

​

​

"

Militarization makes every problem — even a car of teenagers driving away from a party — look like a nail that should be hit with an AR-15 hammer.

Ryan Welch and Jack Mewhirter in The Washington Post​

​

Right now, the Black Lives Matter Global Network is calling for the Biden administration to end 1033 during its first 100 days in office (which ends today, April 30). But action needs to be taken, regardless of whether it’s today or tomorrow. The militarization of law enforcement and other state agencies only reinforces the military-industrial complex and makes policing more harmful to our communities.

​

Key Takeaways

  • Through the 1033 Program, law enforcement agencies can receive surplus military-grade equipment from the military for their everyday use

  • The 1033 Program has distributed $7.4 billion worth of military weapons to police forces around the country

  • Police militarization is proven to increase civilian fatalities and does not increase the effectiveness of law enforcement

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More
Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza

Dismantle anti-fatness.

Fatphobia is rooted in racism and white supremacy. As the transatlantic slave trade grew in the early 1800s, colonies were introduced to African people of all sizes and body types. Race scientists started to create false correlations between curvier body sizes of African people – particularly African women – and their characteristics, suggesting that they were promiscuous, greedy, and aggressive. These stereotypes placed people that demonstrated them at the bottom of the social hierarchy, and used them to justify the enslavement and discrimination against those villainized for it.

Happy Monday and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily! Today we're diving into the history of anti-fatness and its role in state-sanctioned violence. Note that we use the terms "anti-fatness" and "anti-fat bias" rather than "fatphobia" throughout this piece, details here.

Our Earth Week series, "This is our home," is almost over. Subscribe to learn from youth environmental justice leaders addressing the biggest climate threats of our time. thisisourho.me.

This newsletter is a free resource and that's made possible by our paying subscribers. Consider giving $7/month on our website or Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website or PayPal. You can also support us by joining our curated digital community. Thank you to all those that support!

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

  • Follow the work of organizations like The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA), which a non-profit, all volunteer, fat-rights organization dedicated to protecting the rights and improving the quality of life for fat people.

  • If you identify as fat, join Fat Rose, which organizes fat radicals to embed fat politics on the left, contributing to building an intersectional fat liberation movement.

  • Support the #NoBodyIsDisposable movement to resist the triage discrimination fat, and disabled people experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)

Last week, Ma’Khia Bryant, a 16-year-old Black girl, was shot four times by a police officer in Columbus, Ohio (NYTimes). As we’ve written previously, adultification bias influences how young Black girls are seen as older and more threatening than they are. But it’s also important to understand how anti-fat bias magnifies violence against Black communities and that anti-fat sentiment is just as ingrained in Western culture as other forms of oppression.


Fatphobia is rooted in racism and white supremacy. As the transatlantic slave trade grew in the early 1800s, colonies were introduced to African people of all sizes and body types. Race scientists started to create false correlations between curvier body sizes of African people – particularly African women – and their characteristics, suggesting that they were promiscuous, greedy, and aggressive. These stereotypes placed people that demonstrated them at the bottom of the social hierarchy, and used them to justify the enslavement and discrimination against those villainized for it. These perceived behaviors were also discouraged in Protestantism, a form of Christianity popular during this time that celebrated moderation, not excessive consumption. So both religion and slavery greatly influenced the weaponization of fatness against Black people. Sabrina Strings’ book, Fearing the Black Body: The Racial Origins of Fat Phobia, is a comprehensive resource on this issue. Her 12-minute interview with NPR offers a full overview. Anti-fatness in the slave trade institutionalized that oppression in the same way that it institutionalized racism, ableism, and colonialism.

“If you abolish anti-fatness today, and not anti-Blackness, you don't abolish anti-fatness. They exist, and they come online into a coherent ideology through the exact same mechanisms.”

Da’Shaun Harrison, in dialogue with Virgie Toval for Rebel Eaters Club Podcast

Our healthcare system has reinforced systemic anti-fat bias by discriminating against fat people in policy and practice. One way is through the use of the body mass index, or BMI. A mathematician designed the formula as a quick hack to determine the degree of obesity in teh general population, based on the body proportions of a white man. It doesn’t consider the wide genetic predispositions of different bodies, and it was explicitly not designed to gauge individual fatness. You can read a bunch of other reasons it doesn’t work in this NPR article. 

Nevertheless, it’s been adopted as the standard metric of what a healthy body looks like (The Guardian), which harms everyone, particularly people of color. Studies show that the BMI overestimates health risks for Black people and underestimates health risks for Asian people. It also completely ignores the physical, sex-based differences of human bodies (Elemental).

And consequently, a war has been launched against the “obesity epidemic,” which equates fatness to disease, placing individual responsibility on the perceived adverse health effects of being fat that is often a result of a biased, oppressive system. This translates into interpersonal oppression that only exacerbates the harm of the whole. Many physicians will be quick to tell a fat person to “lose weight” instead of investigating the true cause of an ailment (illustrated by Jess Sims in her article for Well+Good). What’s worse: 24% of physicians admitted they were uncomfortable having friends in larger bodies, and 18% said they felt disgusted when treating a patient with a high BMI (Scientific American). This leaves many genuine medical concerns undiagnosed; in fact, fat people are 1.65x more likely to have significant undiagnosed medical conditions than the general population (APA). Consequently,  fat people are more likely to avoid medical care when they believe they won’t be treated appropriately, which increases the likelihood that a health condition can go longer untreated. 
 

Anti-fat bias also exacerbates the state-sanctioned violence that Black people experience. Police often try to justify violence against Black victims based on their size. The officer that killed Michael Brown in 2014 referred to him as a “demon” and said restraining him felt like “ a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan” (Slate). After Eric Garner died after being put in a chokehold by police officers in July 2014, the coroner referenced his weight as a contributing factor to his death. U.S. Congressman Peter King stated that a chokehold was necessary to restrain Garner because of his size, and if he didn’t have “asthma and a heart condition and was so obese,” he “almost definitely” would not have died from it (Huffington Post). Both insinuate that Eric Garner’s death because of his weight, shielding the system of police brutality from accountability. This sentiment certainly influenced the case; federal charges against the officer responsible were ultimately dropped (NYTimes).

“Officers unable to restrain an obese person without killing him are not fit to be serving in a country in which more than one-third of all adults are obese, particularly since these rates are going to be higher in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas that are disproportionately likely to attract police attention.”

Rebecca Kukla and Sarah S. Richardson, “Eric Garner and the Value of Black Obese Bodies” for Huffington Post

Through all this and more, anti-fatness shapes nearly every aspect of our society, including how clothing is sized (Vogue Business), public spaces are designed (Teen Vogue), and health insurance is designed (National Institute of Health). Fat people are discriminated against in the workplace, earning $1.25 less per hour than other employees, which can lead to a loss of $100,000 throughout a career (Yes! Magazine). Even movies and TV shows about fat people are more likely to cast a non-fat actor than a fat one (GEN). In late 2019, TikTok admitted to hiding content created by fat users and other marginalized communities to prevent cyberbullying – a shameful way for a social network to eschew responsibility for toxic behavior (Slate).

Addressing anti-fatness will take more than just changing individual behavior – but that’s a necessary first step. We must stay in inquiry about how we reinforce systemic narratives through body shaming and holding conversations about weight – with each other, but especially within ourselves. And as you continue along on your anti-racism journey, know that dismantling anti-fat bias is part of the work.

Key Takeaways

  • Anti-fatness outlines the systemic and interpersonal oppression that fat people experience

  • Anti-fatness has roots in slavery, and exacerbates racial violence

  • Fat people experience discrimination in the workplace, the healthcare system, the criminal justice system and other aspects of everyday life

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More
Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza

Learn how militarism supports racism.

The US is the top military spender on the planet. What’s more, it spends more on its military than the next ten countries–China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, the UK, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil–combined. The gargantuan military budget sponsors 800 American overseas military bases spread across more than 70 countries (Politico). In 2016, U.S. Special Operations Forces deployed to an astounding 138 countries. Given that there are only 195 countries on Earth, this means more than 70% were visited by American commandos (Forbes).

Happy Friday, and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily. Last week, the Biden administration announced it will withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021 (Washington Post), which offers long-awaited reprieve for the troops and families who have dealt with decades of deployments. It would be remiss to discuss anti-racism from the lens of the United States without acknowledging how militarism fuels that racism both here and abroad. Today, Andrew shares his thoughts on warmongering and racial violence.

Our youth-led series on environmental justice launched last night! Don't miss out – subscribe to receive the week-long series in your inbox: thisisourho.me.

This newsletter is a free resource and that's made possible by our paying subscribers. Consider giving $7/month on Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website or PayPal. You can also support us by joining our curated digital community. Thank you to all those that support!

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

By Andrew Lee (he/him)

Each year, the majority of the federal government’s discretionary budget goes to paying for the same single thing. It isn’t health care or housing. It isn’t education or transportation. No, each year hundreds of billions of dollars go to the US military (National Priorities Project).

The US is the top military spender on the planet. What’s more, it spends more on its military than the next ten countries–China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, the UK, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil–combined. The gargantuan military budget sponsors 800 American overseas military bases spread across more than 70 countries (Politico). In 2016, U.S. Special Operations Forces deployed to an astounding 138 countries. Given that there are only 195 countries on Earth, this means more than 70% were visited by American commandos (Forbes).

In my lifetime alone, this sprawling, expensive military apparatus invaded Haiti, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq (twice). It intervened in Kosovo, Somalia, Bosnia, and Syria (Infoplease). There’s no reason to think this will change anytime soon. President Biden is already signalling a “tougher” foreign policy, calling Chinese president Xi Jinping a “thug” and refusing to lift sanctions on Iran (MarketWatch). Half of Americans expect to go to war with Iran in coming years (Reuters) though less than one in four can point to it on a map (Newsweek). 

We should oppose US military interventions on anti-racist grounds because they lead to the mass death and deprivation of people of color abroad. The War on Terror has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians directly (Watson Institute), to say nothing of those who died from environmental degradation and starvation in the wake of American attacks. The aftermath of the US invasion of Libya has seen the introduction of literal slave markets in the country (Time). No consistent anti-racist can endorse outcomes like these. 

There’s an additional reason why opposing racism means opposing militarism. When America’s leaders beat the war drum, they put people of color in the United States at risk as well. 

The day after September 11th, 2001, President Bush announced that the attacks were “more than acts of terror. They were acts of war.” The United States, he said, was engaged in a “monumental struggle of good versus evil” against an “enemy [who] hides in the shadows and has no regard for human life” (BBC). Three days later, a man with stated intentions to “go out and shoot some towel heads” murdered a Sikh gas station owner, erroneously believed him to be Muslim (PRI). The murderer told police he did it out of patriotic duty. That year, 2001, anti-Muslim hate crimes jumped by 1718% (PRI).

In the early 1980s, Vietnamese refugees along the Gulf Coast came under attack by the Texas Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Burning crosses appeared in the front yards of Vietnamese families as their homes and shrimping boats went up in flames (NPR). Some of the Klan’s members were veterans who saw their campaign of racial terrorism as a continuation of the Vietnam War in which they had fought. “I promise them a lot better fight here than they got from the Viet Cong,” said the Klan’s leader (Timeline). For these white paramilitaries, their enemy hadn’t just been the North Vietnamese army but rather Vietnamese people in general. 

And the current wave of anti-Asian attacks follows years of escalating rhetoric against China. According to one Forbes article, China is poised to “take over the world” (Forbes). China “ripped off the United States like no one has ever done before,” according to President Trump, and pushed the World Health Organization to “mislead the world” over the “Wuhan virus” (CNN). One 2020 Trump campaign email read, “America is under attack -– not just by an invisible virus, but by the Chinese” (NY Times). 

To justify, fund, and conscript soldiers for war requires framing an entire people as the enemy. Politicians sometimes clarify that it is only the political leadership or a certain group within a nation that’s worthy of elimination. But this is fine print in the campaign of racially-tinted dehumanization necessary to convince a nation to endorse mass slaughter. As Dale Minami puts it, “Those images remain. The antipathy remains and survives. And to dehumanize these people of color and bring that back to your own country, the United States, leads to a justification for just terrible treatment of Asian people” (NPR).

President Biden called for increasing the defense budget from $740 to $753 billion this year (The Hill), with the $13 billion addition supposedly only a “modest” increase. Biden’s first military act as president was sanctioning an airstrike in Syria that the administration described as a “deliberate” move designed to “de-escalate the overall situation.” A Notre Dame Law School professor, in contrast, called the attack a clear violation of international law (The Guardian). 

“Deliberate” executions from the sky and Special Forces roaming across a majority of countries in the world aren’t anything unusual. Biden’s airstrike barely made the nightly news in the United States. But if US foreign policy should take an even more contentious turn in the near future, we would do well to remember the catastrophic effects of American war for people around the world and in our very own communities, too. Dehumanization, othering, and racial violence–at home as well as abroad–all go hand in hand. 

We need to stand against warmongering.

Key Takeaways

  • The US military operates in most countries around the world. Its budget dwarfs that of any other nation.

  • American wars have devastating civilian consequences, largely falling on people of color in poor countries.

  • Building support for these wars involves demonizing and dehumanizing the targets of US intervention.

  • This dehumanization creates the climate for racial attacks against people of color in the United States.

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More