Archive for February, 2021

Anti-Woke Crusade Igniting Threats to Safety and Careers: ‘There’s So Much Hatred Projected at Women in Public Life’, Warns Historian Byline Times -…

Hardeep Matharu reports on how the history of the English countryside has turned into a dangerous battleground as various forces try to provoke an uncivil culture war

The anti-woke agenda of the Government and right-wing media is resulting in threats to the safety and careers of female academics, a historian involved in setting the record straight about British heritages colonial links has warned.

Professor Corinne Fowler, of the University of Leicester, told Byline Times that, following sustained attacks on her work, she has reported three incidents of threats to the police, while a project she has led to teach school children about the imperial history of buildings in their local area has been investigated by MPs in an attempt at political intimidation.

I consider it to be a worrying level of interference with intellectual freedom, she said.

Prof Fowler came to the attention of politicians and the right-wing media after co-editing a report by the National Trust, published last September, detailing how 93 of the buildings in its care have links to colonialism and/or slavery. The report was jumped on by those keen to further the culture wars because its list included Chartwell Sir Winston Churchills family home.

The academic said the timing of the reports release in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests and the tearing down of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol meant that it became a political football, dominated by a very emotional response in which factual historical discussion was denounced as the rewriting of history.

Sadly, what Brexit has taught us is that you can make political capital out of dividing people, Prof Fowler said. The most important thing about this is not to weaponise history. These kinds of interventions actually shut down the possibility of having sensible conversations because it all becomes polarised and politicised. I dont think that anybody of any political persuasion should be using history as a way of manipulating public opinion. Its worrying when national pride gets mixed up with historical fact.

As has been seen elsewhere in public life in a post-truth age, historical fact is being held hostage to irrational, unevidenced feeling.

Facts should not be given equal status to opinion, the academic said. Historians write history, thats what they do. When new evidence comes to light about East India Company connections or the slavery business and how that, for example, shaped philanthropy and philanthropic giving in this country, we then adjust our view of the past accordingly, as led by the evidence.

Its good to have conversations about how to interpret certain facts that come to light but I dont think the basic, fundamental facts should be open for discussion. Thats dangerous. Opinion is given too much sway and we end up having quite irrational conversations about history which are not led by the evidence or guided by facts.

Taking its cue from Donald Trumps Make America Great Again movement in the US, Boris Johnsons anti-woke crusade is well underway carrying forward the divisions laid down by Brexit, which for years was preceded by stories of bendy bananas signifying Britains imprisonment at the hands of the EU.

Another absurd but emotional narrative is now being developed around the term woke originally a reference to those working to eradicate social and racial injustices, but now repackaged into a project of denunciation of anyone considered unpatriotic, leftie or criticising structural ills in Britain. In many ways, it is the clearest modern expression of the old colonial divide and rule presided over by the British Empire to devastating effect of which the Prime Minister is so beloved.

As with Brexit, it seeks to divide along identity lines. How Britain sees itself, its past and values is a key battleground.

The strategy was brazenly on display recently in a Telegraph article entitled We Will Save Our History From Woke Militants. In it, Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary Robert Jenrick said that there has been an attempt to impose a single, often negative narrative which, not so much recalls our national story, as seeks to erase part of it by a cultural committee of town hall militants and woke worthies. The piece announced a change in the law to ensure that planning approval will be required before historical monuments are removed.

Reports in the past week that the Government will be conducting a review into left-wing extremism and attempts by far-left activists to hijack political movements such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion contain echoes of the same.

But, backing up Government ministers is much of the press, with the anti-woke agenda now crystallising around the launch of the forthcoming GB News channel. This week, journalist Andrew Neil said he is launching it because I believe the direction of news debate in Britain is increasingly woke and out of touch GB News will be proud of our country, even when revealing its shortcomings and its inequalities. Our default position will not be to do Britain down at every turn.

Aside from the fact that much of Britains media landscape is dominated by newspapers with tendencies to the right, Neils words reek of hypocrisy for another reason.

Ive had hundreds of hostile articles written about me, Ive had my work misrepresented, Ive had threats, Ive got police reports, Ive had all kinds of problems and attempts to intimidate me at a political level, Prof Fowler told Byline Times. How is that not closing down discussion, how is that not cancel culture?

As soon as you slap a label on someone its an excuse not to listen to something really interesting they might have to say, whether or not you agree with them politically. The woke term is a particularly annoying one because it implies that someone is politically biased and therefore cant be trusted.

One of the articles referencing Prof Fowler in the wake of the National Trust report suggested precisely this with the headline of the Mail Online piece declaring: National Trust is Accused of Recruiting Biased Team of Academics to Probe its Properties Links to Empire and the Slave Trade. It included a photo of her in a personal context and details of the other female historians who had co-edited the report.

She is worried that theres so much hatred being projected at women in public life and fears it is part of a wider project to rollback progressive wins.

There is a pattern, an international pattern, across Europe, Australia and the US of trying to discredit academics, particularly female academics, but also climate scientists and increasingly historians of empire, Prof Fowler said. And thats all happening in the context of nationalism.

Its not that journalists shouldnt be critical, its their job to be critical, but when they are running inaccurate, misleading or hostile articles about the work, theyre just fuelling a hostile environment for intellectual curiosity. Intellectual freedom really matters and name-calling is never helpful, ever.

The problem is that, for every hostile Daily Mail article, there are about 300 or so threats that come to me personally on the basis of that coverage. Theres a lot of anger and suffering around at the moment and its not okay to parade historians in front of people as some kind of enemy when all theyre doing is their job. We should be, yes, critical; yes, sceptical; but not hostile or demeaning.

Im not saying Ive been intimidated by it because I havent, Im not going anywhere, but thats not for everybody. That level of threat and intimidation is not something that everybody would choose for their own sanity to withstand. You shouldnt have to be super resilient to be a woman in public life.

Im very concerned that were going to rollback progress in terms of us trying, genuinely trying, to level the playing field for people of colour, for people with disabilities, for women and on LGBT rights. If you have such a hostile environment and youre supporting an environment where its okay to attack women, its okay to attack people of colour, and its okay to attack academics, then how can you have a civilised society which isnt bitterly divided and polarised?

Thats my real concern a lack of respect, openness and ability to learn and grow as a society, together, no matter what our political views.

Prof Fowler has no desire to contribute to the worrying climate being fuelled through the culture wars.

She believes that unconditional respect for all detractors, not concessions on historical facts, is required: You cant have a meaningful conversation with people if youre hostile to them because they dont immediately see what youre driving at.

The academic would like to see history being explored through a local lens as she does with her Colonial Countryside project with schools as well as more initiatives such as University College Londons Legacies of British Slave Ownership which allow people to personally engage with Britains colonial past.

She describes her new book, Green Unpleasant Land, as an important intervention on our countryside and Englishness. Inevitably, it has been subject to ridicule by elements in the right-wing press.

For 400 years, the countryside has been closely connected with ideas of Englishness, she said. Whether thats working-class rural Englishness and farming, but its also this idea of the rural idyll and Arcadia these sorts of ideas which have been written about by poets for hundreds of years.

The real question is why does such work by a historian not keen to attract any public attention on a personal level provoke such a warped reaction? Exactly who or what is she attacking?

On 6 January, Donald Trump told his supporters that they had to show strength to take our country back; that nothing less would suffice. They later stormed the US Capitol, carrying the Confederate flag through the halls of American democracy as if like a dagger through its heart.

We have seen where a manipulated idea of a country, its history, and what it stands for can lead. We turn a blind eye to the deeper, darker project sitting beneath the anti-woke culture wars here in Britain at our peril.

New to Byline Times? Find out about us

Our leading investigations include Russian Interference, Coronavirus, Cronyism and Far Right Radicalisation. We also introduce new voices of colour in Our Lives Matter.

To have an impact, our investigations need an audience.

But emails dont pay our journalists, and nor do billionaires or intrusive ads. Were funded by readers subscription fees:

Or donate to our seasonal crowdfunder to hire an additional journalist to conduct more investigations.

See original here:
Anti-Woke Crusade Igniting Threats to Safety and Careers: 'There's So Much Hatred Projected at Women in Public Life', Warns Historian Byline Times -...

Of course Donald Trump’s team didn’t tell the truth about his Covid-19 illness – CNN

Throughout Trump's campaign for president and the four years in the White House, he and those closest to him repeatedly sought to obfuscate about his overall health -- setting new lows in the standards of transparency for our chief executive in the process.

When Trump tested positive for Covid-19 in October 2020, it was virtually impossible to get a straight answer about his condition out of anyone in the White House -- including White House physician Sean Conley.

Conley repeatedly gave rosy assessments of Trump's health while battling the disease, conveniently parsing words to avoid acknowledging what we now know (and long suspected): This was a very serious health crisis for Trump.

"I was trying to reflect the upbeat attitude that the team, the President in his course of illness has had. I didn't want to give any information that might steer the course of illness in another direction, and in doing so it came off that we're trying to hide something."

Which tells you everything you need to know about Conley -- and the approach to Trump's health he and the White House team took. What difference does the desire to "reflect the upbeat attitude of the team [and] the president," have on Trump's condition? And why would Conley providing accurate information about Trump's condition "steer the course of illness in another direction"? Short answer: It wouldn't.

That Trump's condition was even more dire than we knew, then, isn't surprising. A lack of transparency -- and Trump's desire to always be perceived as strong and, uh, manly -- was a feature, not a glitch, of the Trump White House.

Knowing the full picture of a President's health -- whether that President is Trump or Joe Biden or whoever comes after Biden -- is a public right. Being purposely misinformed or given very limited information for public relations reasons should not be excused. Or repeated.

Go here to see the original:
Of course Donald Trump's team didn't tell the truth about his Covid-19 illness - CNN

Opinion | Is This the End of Obsessively Hating Donald Trump? – The New York Times

Yet we too are sticking to a script, as celebrants in the impeachment managers bid to win the hearts and minds of jurors who have not shown ownership of either. Mr. Trump may have railed against it and had his surrogates fight it, but the trial has given a new spotlight to an attention addict whose rehab was not going well. He is not there, but this is still The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, about Donald J. Trump, featuring applause for Donald J. Trump, and starring Donald J. Trump as Donald J. Trump. His ego and his coffers need you to watch, to tweet, to rage.

So do you not watch, to enlarge the collective spiting of him? Do you give oxygen to an amoral human torch? The Resistance did not create or empower Mr. Trump. But we did make the classic first mistake of concluding that our insights, analysis and morality would convince his supporters that they were tragically wrong. When that failed, we made the classic second mistake of assuming we hadnt made our first mistake loudly or clearly enough. Im not ready to believe that we started it, but I, for one, have gotten loud and blasphemous enough to peel the paint off my walls.

Still, we cannot underestimate the power of righteous and organic hatred to overwhelm everything else. It is hard to fathom now, but in the epic sitcom All in the Family, one of the best running jokes consisted entirely of Carroll OConnors Archie Bunker getting in the face of Bea Arthurs Maude Findlay and announcing the identity of the worst president in history. He would elongate it and he would mispronounce it and when he would intone Fraaaaanklin. Delllllano. Roooooooosevelt!; she would erupt in paroxysms of liberal rage at his heresy.

These political passion plays were performed some 25 years after Roosevelt died, and were thus a real-time testament to something the half century since has erased: Beloved and revered as he may have been, F.D.R. was also passionately hated and blamed, and his memory alone could start political fistfights into at least the 1970s.

One wonders if the visceral hatred of Mr. Trump will end that soon. Or if it ever will.

Just as I have far more history with Mr. Trump than I would have wished, I also have some standing on the subject of people consuming political Soylent that they clearly dont like, dont want to see, and dont want to eat.

At roughly this time of year in 1998, I was at the Super Bowl on assignment for NBC and also doing a week of celebrity-themed shows for my little niche, boutique, offbeat news hour on MSNBC. We were all set up to interview John Lithgow in front of the refrigerator in the kitchen set of Third Rock From the Sun when my producer advised there had been a slight change in plans: I would instead be interviewing Tim Russert via satellite from Washington, because the president might be resigning over his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Our audience first doubled, then trebled. The heady, news-packed and unpredictable early days of the show we subtly renamed White House in Crisis made for compelling viewing. Then came an enormous cloud of the kind of illogic which may apply to whatever follows Mr. Trumps second impeachment trial.

Follow this link:
Opinion | Is This the End of Obsessively Hating Donald Trump? - The New York Times

How Donald Trump’s hand-holding led to panicky call home by Theresa May – The Guardian

For the former prime minister Theresa May, one of the most pressing matters she confronted during her encounter with Donald Trump a few days after his inauguration went beyond mere diplomacy.

May had travelled to Washington in 2017 with the intention of persuading the new US president to make a supportive statement about Nato. Little did she expect that she would be calling her husband, Philip, to warn him that images of the US president of holding her hand as they walked through the White House would soon be flashing around the world.

With Trump out of power, those who had ringside seats during four years of dangerous and often chaotic foreign policy are now describing their often bruising encounters in a major new documentary series.

The three-part BBC series, Trump Takes on the World, by the award-winning documentary maker Norma Percy, reveals extraordinary access to key observers of the president.

With testimony from a whos who of world leaders and senior US officials, it offers an unmediated reflection of Trump shorn of political hypocrisies.

It was not just May who found Trump unsettling: to European diplomatic observers, he seemed a strange creature. And he also triggered alarm among some American officials in the room with him, with one defence official noting that the presidents notoriously short attention span suggested a squirrel careening through the traffic.

Mays encounter with Trump, which is described to Percy by British aides as well as Trump insiders, was a taste of what was to come. May was seen as not strong by Trump, according to KT McFarland, the former US deputy national security adviser. But the prime minister had gone into the meeting determined to persuade the president to make a statement backing Nato and warn him over his closeness to Vladimir Putin.

The meeting took a bizarre twist as they walked through the White House.

He held her hand going through the colonnades, which took us all by surprise, and as it turns out, took Theresa by surprise, Fiona McLeod Hill, the former joint chief of staff at No 10, told Percy.

She couldnt really take her hand back, so she was stuck And the first thing she said [afterwards] was I need to call Philip just to let him know that Ive been holding hands with another man before it hits the media.

Before May had the opportunity to call her husband, Trump hosted her for lunch, where another boundary-shattering episode was waiting. First May was treated to the full bloom one of Trumps stream-of-consciousness rants, described by Thomas Shannon, then US undersecretary for political affairs, as running the gamut from his own inauguration to his disdain for the press.

Then, keen to raise the issue of Putin, May asked Trump if he had spoken to the Russian leader, which Trump denied. At that point, however, Trumps chief of staff intervened to tell the president that Putin had actually called, but not been put through.

Hill takes up the story of the toe-curling outburst. Trump at this point looks not orange but red. He flipped. Furious. In front of May, he scolded his advisers in what Shannon recalled as an unseemly moment. He said: Youre telling me that Vladimir Putin called the White House and youre only telling me now during this lunch? Vladimir Putin is the only man in the world who can destroy the United States and I didnt take his call.

May was far from alone in being exposed to Trumps flagrant disregard for boundaries.

From his unilateral withdrawals from the Iranian nuclear treaty and the Paris climate accord to his dealings with the Palestinians, Russia and China, few even those close to him could ever fully grasp the extent of his unpredictability or his disdain for detail.

The former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull was thrown off balance by Trumps behaviour during an encounter at a G20 meeting in Hamburg also in 2017.

Like May, Turnbull had important issues on his mind, in this case steel tariffs. Taking his chance, Turnbull collared Trump, who was obsessing about something else. Donald said: Malcolm, do you want to see my SCIF? It is so cool. I had no idea what he was talking about. I thought he was talking about a boat [a skiff]. We turned around a corner and there was this big steel box about the size of a shipping container.

Trump pulled Turnbull into what turned out to be a sensitive compartmented information facility, an ultra-secure communications hub, with the new French president, Emmanuel Macron, also in tow.

He said: This is so cool when youre in there, nobody can hear you, not even the Chinese. Its so secret.

Expectations of Trump from European leaders were not so much low as non-existent. For the former French president Franois Hollande, who dealt with Trump only briefly, an early red flag was raised when the US leader asked him in all earnestness who he should appoint to his team in the White House. I thought he was just being courteous; it was pretty outrageous. Imagine I phoned Obama and said: You know France well, who should I appoint as an adviser? Later, briefing his successor Macron during the transition, Hollande was clear how he regarded the US leader sentiments Percy herself regards as a summing up how many foreign leaders viewed the Trump era.

I said to [Macron], Hollande recalls, dont expect anything from Donald Trump. Do not think youll be able to change his mind. Dont think that its possible to turn him or seduce him. Dont imagine that he wont follow through with his own agenda.

Some friends asked me why I was doing it, said Percy, who has made the documentaries The Death of Yugoslavia, End of Empire and Watergate, and who filmed the new series under lockdown. The view was that we knew what Trump was like. He was on the news every night. But this is the inside story of those who had to deal with him.

Trump Takes on the World begins on Wednesday at 9pm on BBC Two

See the original post here:
How Donald Trump's hand-holding led to panicky call home by Theresa May - The Guardian

Fifth Amendment to PREP Act Declaration expands "covered persons" to increase workforce authorized to administer COVID-19 vaccines – JD…

On January 28, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued its fifth amendment[1] to the Declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) related to COVID-19 (the Declaration), entitled Fifth Amendment to the Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID19 and Republication of the Declaration (hereinafter the Fifth Amendment).[2] This latest amendment adds additional categories of qualified persons authorized to prescribe, dispense and administer FDA-authorized, approved, or licensed COVID-19 vaccines in an effort to help states and U.S. territories meet the demand for vaccines and protect their communities as quickly as possible as vaccine supply becomes more widely available.[3] In turn, where the applicable requirements have been met (and subject to certain limitations), these additional qualified persons, as covered persons under the PREP Act, [4] will be afforded liability protections in accordance with the PREP Act and the terms of the amended Declaration.

Most notably, the Fifth Amendment:

This latest amendment is effective as of January 28, 2021.

[View source.]

Continued here:
Fifth Amendment to PREP Act Declaration expands "covered persons" to increase workforce authorized to administer COVID-19 vaccines - JD...