Bambu & Geologic - We Should Read Some Books

{ytvid}ZucF0kS9S48{/ytvid}

Bambu's "...one rifle per family." is available on iTunes and at http://beatrockmusic.com

"We Want Your Soul" by Adam Freeland

{ytvid}C09lJQ4Blks{/ytvid}

Poem: Imperial bird of prey

Things which distinguish the National Bird

Golden feet with
Razor sharp talons.
Cold reptilian eyes, as large as a human's
But four times as sharp.
A hooked beak evolved to tear through muscle and tendon,
but nimble enough to feed flesh strands to its young.

A shrill high pitched call that pains the ear--
produced not by vocal chords
but in a bony chamber located where the trachea divides.

Wide broad wings that allow it to soar almost two miles high
Without expending its own energy.
The eagle soars by catching drafts of warm air
that rise from the sun-cooked earth.

Its body is black and brown.
Its head, neck, and fanned tail--white.
Hatched, the eagle is brown-black from head to toe.
It takes around five years for its head to go "bald,"
its beak to turn gold.
There is no other large blackish-brown bird with a white head and tail in North America.

It looks to be a vicious bird of prey.
And it can be.
But it prefers carrion to live meat.
Close cousin to the vulture
It feeds on flopping fish,
seeks the fresh rot.

A predator and a scavenger
it sits atop the food chain,
yet is still vulnerable to concentrated toxins
that pool in the corpses it feasts on.
Its numbers in the continental US
have exploded, from a few hundred in the 1967
to almost ten thousand now.
Concentrated now in Louisiana and Florida
It remains the only eagle that is unique to North America.

The Eagle's secret is in its seven thousand ingenious feathers,
which serve as both an on board navigation and an insulation system.
Together the feathers weigh twice as much
as all the eagles bones do (beak and talons included).

The eagle's bones are hollow,
making its skeleton--when plucked of feathers and flesh--
extremely light.

Can work take new meaning?

The following piece comes from comrade Doug Enaa Greene. It originally appeared on Counterpunch. In the wake of Obama's reelection and his promise to create a million new manufacturing jobs, Doug digs into the what it means to be a worker in capitalist society.

Perhaps our struggle can take more conscious forms. We can see our individual condition as something that is not individual, but as the collective lot of a class comprised of those alienated and exploited. We can understand and see a perfect pattern. We can name our enemy: capitalism.

The Monstrosity of Capitalism: Observations on Work

by Doug Enaa Greene

With the election cycle over, President Obama has promised to create one million manufacturing jobs. Obama has also promised to cut taxes forsmall businesses in order to spur job creation. Considering the depths of the recession, the call for the creation of jobs is on the minds of millions. And for those out of work or barely getting by, getting a job seems like a godsend.

Many on the left are pressing for “jobs for the 99%.”  Yet the call for full employment  tends to ignore and obscure the nature of work under capitalism, which at its very roots is fundamentally exploitative and alienating.

Read more...

Django Unchained: Who frees who?


“We all intellectually ‘know’ the brutality and inhumanity of slavery, but after you do the research it’s no longer intellectual any more, no longer just historical record—you feel it in your bones. It makes you angry, and want to do something.…

"I’m here to tell you, that however bad things get in the movie, a lot worse shit actually happened. When slave narratives are done on film, they tend to be historical with a capital H, with an arm’s-length quality to them. I wanted to break that history-under-glass aspect, I wanted to throw a rock through that glass and shatter it for all times, and take you into it.” 

Quentin Tarentino, Guardian, December 7, 2012

Django is a grandiose mixture of spaghetti western and blacksploitation films. The story is about a slave Django and a German bounty hunter Dr. Schultz who journey to free Django's wife Hilde.

Don't be fooled by the theatrical use of blood or flying bodies. The themes here are quite serious: slavery, black liberation, master and slave, inter-racism and the nature of America. 

Django comes out shortly after the film Lincoln. These two films lock together in a duel. In Spielberg's Lincoln, Black people appear in static forms whose liberation is handed to them through the courage of white men.

Django offers a counter to this narrative.

Tarentino spoke about his desire to do 'a Southern' (not a Western). Meaning: A film placed in the Deep South and dealing with “America's horrible past with slavery but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to.” (from the Telegraph)

Tarentino doesn't explictly say why he makes the film oriented towards popular culture, as opposed to 'big issue films', but the point is that serious topics, even if dealt with through humor, are still exposed. Our laughter only lets us view the phenomenon from a different perspective. This is obvious in the scene where hooded riders, with the intent to hunt down Django and Dr. Schultz, have a group conversation about the tailor job on their hoods. The problem? Nobody can see out of them. The result is a demystification of the hooded riders as a terror. Instead, they barely know their doing. And in the end, most of them are killed off.

In the theatre that I saw the film, the audience (at least 90% black) laughed hardest at this scene. It made me realize how humor is connected to power: the KKK didn't symbolize fear, but vulnerability and theatrics.

Dr. Schultz

Usually, the story goes like this: white man finds black man in misery. White man frees black man. White man and black man become friends. The two fight evil. One dies, the other weeps.

This film avoided this cliché. Yes, there is death. Alot of it, actually. And the plot starts as something, typical. Dr. Schultz is a German who we find in America. He is a bounty hunter, a former dentist. He has tact, a master of social maneuvering. His wit is outdone only by the accuracy he performs with his guns. We don't get much background to his character, but his dialog more then makes up for this. Still, we are left to assume much here.

Mike Ely has written about German immigrant communists and beer during Civil War times. And although we don't hear about Marx or the '48 revolution in Django, we do know that this German, Dr. Schultz, despises slavery. Still, he makes the mistake of assuming that he has given Django freedom.

All in all he makes an attempt to be partners with Django, but because he feels 'responsible' to him. The paternalism is still there. He compares his job of bounty hunting to slavery, in that both deal with flesh: Slavery deals in bodies, whereas he deals in corpses. As the film progresses, we see Dr. Schultz face a moral dilemma of enjoying his freedom in contrast to the horrific world around him. He can kill freely as a bounty hunter, and this puts him in a similar position of power to the slave owner: both have power over life.

This reaches a boiling point. Dr. Schultz' ethics (which are perhaps proto-communist because of the experience that Germans like him had in Germany's 1848 revolution), freely chooses his own death over shaking the hand of the slave owner Calvin Candie. The redemption here is in the choice: Death over affirming the Candie.

The name here is no arbitrary decision: Candie, candy, sweets. The poem "Sweet meat has sour sauce" is exemplary here. Dr. Schultz choose death over comfort derived from misery, resolving that contradiction.

The Other

Calvin Candie : Dr. Schultz

Stephen : Django

Each confronts their other in this film. Each set is a contradiction. The film shows how each of these contradictions influence one another, and yet are resolved internally.

The cliché would have been either Django or Schultz (or both with one dieing through the battle) against Calvin Candie. What happens in the end is Django fighting Stephen. Now, no other actor could have pulled of Stephen like Samuel Jackson. It was suberb. But the metaphor here is surprisingly advanced for a white American film director, as it points towards the complexity of race: there is no heterogenous 'black' form.

Self-determination

After their plan is thwarted, Django finds himself back as a slave. Here, the lesson of the film Burn! (Queimada) is applied: you cannot be freed by another. This is when the film negates the genre's trope: instead of a white man coming to free Django, Django uses lessons learned through struggle to free himself. Django develops from a slave to an apprentice of Dr. Schultz to his equal to having the final word. The scene were he frees himself ends with two powerful sequences.

First, Django washes the white dust from a dynamite explosion off him. The water takes away the dust and reveals a rejuvenated blackness. This is him washing himself of a white coating, of his dependency on whites.

Second, a slave who formerly detested Django watches him ride off on a horse. His smile illuminates the screen. He is affirmed by his people.

Django then returns to free his wife and finish off those who wronged him. The final vengeance upon Stephen is the resolution of the internal struggle of blackness. Liberation is achieved only by the negation of the Django's other: the slave who has become subservient to the white man and willingly sends his own kind to their death.

Who Writes History?

As the film ended, the audience applauded. I heard one comment afterwards, “That shit was hot”. The soundtrack was a mix of Ennio Morricone and hip-hop. I'd never seen something like this before. The film itself was a success, although a bit lengthy and contained a usual failure of static-female characters. 

What do communists say about all this?

A lot of the debate revolves around one fact about the  film: that is a narrative of slavery that was directed by a white man. And some assume the whole issue is simple: Can a white director create film and narrative about the black experience?

I think the answer to that question is obviously yes. And any work like this should be evaluated in its own right (by its stand, politics and impact), not simply by the identity of the author.

From there however more difficult questions follow:

The question of liberation: how do an oppressed people achieve their freedom? In the U.S. the end of slavery involved the heroic sacrifice of African American soldiers, runaways, and resistors on the plantations. But it also involved them (necessarily, inevitably) in a broad, complex and highly contradictory alliance with antislavery and Unionist whites -- including literally millions of white soldiers, and the Lincoln government.

There is contradiction here. And that contradiction erupted in a terrible resolution with the ultimate betrayal of Black people that followed the initial emancipation.

And so: what is the relation between communist internationalism and black nationalism in a country like the U.S.? What kind of an alliance can lead to liberation today?"

 

Video: iGlide “Day Dream”

As if gravity didn’t matter…

Proyección comunista: Palabras, símbolos y rituales


“El templo de la perspectiva” de Tom Greenall y Jordan Hodgson. Es una representación artística de la historia de nuestro planeta y nuestro lugar en ello (en un pilar de capas) construido como monumento visual. Una exploración secular del significado, contexto y reverencia.

[Gracias a Doxus Turquino por la traducción al español. Also available in English: Communist foreshocks: Words, ritual and symbols]

Mike Ely
18 de marzo, 2012

“La política es tan simbólica como analítica…”

“La audiencia que necesitamos es descubierta a través de medios sociales y culturales, no simplemente atraída con palabras.”

“Como señalara Lenin: el oprimido que se levanta demanda saber cómo vivir, y cómo morir (no sólo qué creer).”

“La gente necesita expresiones ínter-humanas vivas; expresiones sobre la concepción del mundo y la moralidad que sean más que simples catálogos sobre visión del mundo y moralidad.”

Siempre me he sentido frustrado con el presupuesto que podemos atraer gentes hacia la política revolucionaria principalmente “explicándolo” todo —como si, de repente, las personas adquirieran consciencia, militancia, y determinación en la lucha por una nueva sociedad, en gran parte porque se les diga una serie de explicaciones respaldadas por elaboradas estructuras de análisis. Yo he llamado este problema “el fetiche de la palabra”. Un nombre más formal (si necesitáramos otra etiqueta) pudiera ser racionalismo.

Entretanto vemos, tanto en la sociedad como en política a nuestro alrededor, sugerencias de que las “explicaciones,” incluso detalladas y correctas, no son suficientes —y vemos con frecuencia gentes quienes son atraídas a políticas bastante irracionales a través de poderosos medios simbólicos.

Podemos trazar el surgimiento y caída de la fantástica, extravagante, política de Louis Farrakhan —la cual combina el completamente engañoso misticismo con visceral llamado al auto respeto, superación personal, orgullo y mordaz enajenación política.

O podemos ver a grandes secciones del pueblo emergiendo a la vida política durante esta Primavera Árabe, liberándose de décadas de represión y, en su mayor parte, atraídos en primera instancia por la profunda resonancia de “¡Allahu Akbar!” y la ingenua esperanza en la justicia de la ley Shariah.

¿De dónde viene ese poder?

El racionalismo secular con frecuencia asume (en ocasiones con una intencionalidad inflexiblemente simple) que las “ideas incorrectas” provienen de la mezcla de ignorancia y adoctrinamiento por parte de clases “externas” —y así asume que el antídoto contra el error es simplemente martillar las ideas correctas en el desinformado— método que he llamado “tira tus ideas, toma las mías”. Hay en ello, no obstante, un elemento verdadero —nosotros debemos ser evangelizantes sobre el comunismo. Pero a menudo eso ocurre muy unilateralmente. En otras palabras, ese racionalismo concibe a la gente, las ideas, la cultura y el cambio de modo bastante plano, simple —y su fracaso lo confirma.

Yo creo en la divulgación de las ideas y exposiciones revolucionarias. Yo pienso que la teoría revolucionaria jugará un rol poderoso en el reagrupamiento del nuevo movimiento social revolucionario. A menudo me he sentido ofendido por el falso estereotipo del militante comunista “sólo como vendedor deambulatorio de periódicos de puerta en puerta, por los laterales”. Después de todo, yo he escrito, diseñado, redactado, promovido y fomentado periódicos radicales toda mi vida. Y pienso que nosotros deberíamos (¡ahora!) estar desarrollando penetrantes, atractivos, irresistibles centros de noticias, opinión, análisis, sátira, humor y teoría.

Pero… pero… además de todo eso, al mismo tiempo, pienso que deberíamos crear y usar nuestro nuevo medio revolucionario evitando la repetición ingenua de los presupuestos ideológicos y prácticas del racionalismo previo.

He aquí algo que con frecuencia se pierde: La política es tan simbólica como analítica. La atracción política es también visceral y cultural. Atracción que incluye “ganar” con las palabras. Ello nos requiere valentía sobre representar nuestras creencias.

Pero, de una manera polifacética, la audiencia que necesitamos será alcanzada por diferentes atracciones culturales y sociales, no sólo “ganadas” por las palabras.

Como Lenin brillantemente una vez describiera, los oprimidos que se levantan venían demandando saber “cómo vivir y cómo morir”, no sólo qué creer. Para ser capaces de ejecutar un proceso real de forjar una base política de masas, tenemos que aprender de nuestra audiencia (es decir, “del pueblo”) también; no se trata de un proceso con sólo una dirección de acción sino una interacción. Ese es el proceso que Mao llamó la línea de la masa.

Yo estoy diciendo (entre otras cosas) que los movimientos políticos necesitan afianzarse y conectar en un desesperado sentido de comunidad (en una sociedad de aislamiento y atomización humana). Un movimiento por una nueva sociedad necesita poseer poderosos símbolos y rituales (a partir de los cuales la gente tome sentido y exprese creencias comunes a través de vías no-racionales). La gente necesita expresiones ínter-humanas vivas; expresiones sobre la concepción del mundo y la moralidad que sean más que simples catálogos sobre visión del mundo y moralidad. (Y aquí nos referimos a cosas como rebeldía, no respetabilidad, internacionalismo, amor al pueblo, altruismo, solidaridad, pensamiento crítico, metodología científica, modestia, perceptibilidad, una honesta y auto-crítica fidelidad a la verdad, y más).

Remachando: Nosotros necesitamos entender qué significa que una frase (como “¡Allah Akbar!” o “¡Libertad Ahora!”) desarrolle un profundo poder simbólico. Y tenemos que identificar y apreciar esos temas culturales, y esas expresiones que tienen poder para los inconformes[1] y visionarios en nuestra sociedad —todo lo cual es aplicable (aún con inevitables cambios mayores) a nuestro proyecto de profundo cambio social y liberación.

Una política radical exitosa necesita palabras que sean evocativas y penetrantes —no es suficiente que sean palabras precisas. Todo movimiento social revolucionario exitoso (sin excepción) posee gran poder simbólico. Dentro de los Estados Unidos, el Black Panther Party, tuvo muy penetrante y poderoso espíritu inventivo cuando creó su poderoso simbolismo en política.

Hombres y mujeres negros vestidos con cuero, boina y fusil —en aquel momento, en aquel contexto, en aquella encrucijada— hicieron que millones de corazones palpitaran de emoción. Cuando los Panthers anunciaban a seguidores y enemigos por igual: “Blood to the horse’s brow and woe to those who cannot swim[1]” —allí había análisis en la poesía y poesía en el análisis.

Justo un ejemplo importante. El slogan de los Panthers “Power to the people” [El poder al pueblo] retorna una y otra vez desde los 60. Es un slogan de aquel tiempo que posee renacimiento continuo.

A pesar de las bien conocidas fallas de Eldridge Cleaver —nosotros haríamos bien al estudiar su brillantez desarrollando nuevos símbolos y poderosos slogans popularizando una política con palabras vivas que no eran híper intelectuales. Y obviamente, no podemos simplemente copiar slogans que fueron exitosos: necesitamos entender cómo el simbolismo cambia con el tiempo.

En los 60, slogans como “Black is beautiful” o “drop out and expand your mind  [2]” y en ocasiones una ingenua vibra comunal, tuvieron todos poderoso significado (y atracción) para millones de personas que emergían del racismo y conformismo de los 50. Incluso, cuando tales temas no fueron explícitamente políticos, en sentido estereotípico, ellos ayudaron a la formación del contexto y precondiciones para la política revolucionaria de masas. Pero entonces, justo diez años más tarde, la cultura Punk fue edificada sobre el enojado rechazo del pensamiento “paz y amor” Hippie —y expresó un nuevo lenguaje simbólico y artístico de rebelión. El Hip Hop tuvo entonces su propio lenguaje y estética, su representación del agravio y orgullo callejero. El tiempo pasó y nuevas expresiones ganaron poder simbólico.

Así, el rápido movimiento cultural puede poner pesada demanda sobre nuestra creatividad. Tenemos que estar bien atentos y prontos para, incluso, oír lo que se dice en el aire. Y tenemos que ser suficiente creativos para percibir el uso de expresiones nuevas, agarrar sus poder potencial y adoptarlas.

En breve: Nosotros necesitamos concebir el proyecto mismo de desarrollo alternativo de una sociedad postcapitalista mucho más allá que un asunto conceptual y analítico (tal como es expresado por ideas particulares e importantes: ¿Cómo desmantelar el antiguo Estado? ¿Cómo planear la economía? ¿Cómo reorganizar las fronteras para reconocer la autonomía y liberación de los pueblos indígenas?; etc.)

Nosotros además necesitamos estar desarrollando (articulando pero también manifestando) una moral alterna y sentido para el pueblo (en lugar de la actual competencia despiadada y en lugar del sentido egocéntrico, atomizado, burgués, enfocado simplemente en la acumulación para sí o placer para sí o la salvación religiosa de sí).

Esto incluye la identificación de “esferas de experimentos” (en nuestro alrededor) donde podamos (junto con otros) tratar de acarrear y refinar simbolismo, moralidad y conexiones a sentido, de modos tales que puedan representar al movimiento y la sociedad que sobreviene (análogo, quizás, a las bases de áreas rurales donde las fuerzas de Mao desarrolló su “Camino de Yenan” —cuya promesa entonces asió a China como una conversión de masa).

Algo de esto está dentro de los movimientos de lucha —donde el pueblo combina sus esfuerzos para demandar cambio. Pero no se encuentra solamente allí.

Iniciación Comunista 1

Yo tuve un amigo quien fue criado Católico Romano, y fue alistado (por alguno de nosotros) en la Unión Revolucionaria, una organización maoísta embrionaria. Tuvimos una “reunión” de reclutamiento —en la cual discutimos nuestra unidad política, desacuerdos, su pasado, sus aspiraciones, su situación, etc. Entonces le explicamos que había sido aceptado, y le dijimos dónde y cuándo sería la próxima reunión interna de la organización.

Nos miró contrariado, casi con espanto. ¿Cómo… —preguntó— sin ceremonia? ¿Sin ordenación? ¿No tengo que hacer juramento? ¿No hay celebración de bienvenida? ¿No hay ritual para compartir métodos secretos y conducta? ¿No hay entrega de distintivo, carnet, signos secretos? ¿No hay código de conducta privada? Mi compañero estaba disgustado —sentía que no había sido realmente “conectado”.

Él estaba entrando a un estadio superior en su vida, estaba pasando una “puerta” principal para su vida y la vida de la sociedad —estaba haciendo un profundo, consciente, cometido hacia el mundo, los oprimidos y el futuro. Eso, para él, y para nosotros, representaba todo. Y nosotros (como movimiento) no obstante, no marcábamos el evento, no lo corroborábamos, ni lo celebrábamos —ni sabíamos cómo.

Los fundamentalistas reciben a sus nuevos miembros con pasajes de renacimiento y bautismo —con palabras y rituales comunales que las gentes han hallado plenos de significado por siglos. Toda agrupación histórica ha recibido a los nuevos convertidos mediante eventos distintivos. Eventos que marcan la identidad y pertenencia (incluido el bautismo y el bris del mohel[3]). Hay evidencias, de los albores de nuestra emergencia como especie, que muestran una asombrosa diversidad y poder de signos, rituales funerales y entierro de los muertos. Los fundamentalistas estimulan a la gente quebrantada y afligida a que sean “nacidos de nuevo”. Los católicos disponen de un sofisticado sistema para el auto examen y la confesión. Muchas agrupaciones sociales han desarrollado sus ideas sobre el perdón y cómo expresarlo.

Pero, aquí, durante los embrionarios días de nuestro nuevo movimiento comunista de los 70, habíamos prestado atención sólo a las palabras que nos definían (las explicaciones). Identificábamos las necesidades legalistas de transición (fundamento de unidad, acuerdos, acometimiento, y aceptación de la disciplina). Pero nosotros ignoramos (casi militantemente) el simbolismo necesario, los marcadores culturales por medio de los cuales los humanos definen el significado para sí mismos, y el sentido de su momento.

Ahora, al inicio de nuevos proyectos, no queremos hacerlo de una manera exagerada…haciendo una parodia revolucionaria de las sociedades secretas. Sin embargo, tenemos que hacerlo.

Y, aun siendo un movimiento tan lleno de palabras, nosotros con frecuencia no hemos sabido hablar sobre estas cosas —más allá de “ninguna cadena tradicional nos atará” (la cual es una preciosa noción de negación, al margen de la necesidad creativa de afirmación crítica). En otras palabras, si no estamos ligados por tradiciones, bien —entonces ¿cómo estaríamos vinculados? ¿Cómo expresaríamos esa unión, ese vínculo, ese lazo de comunión unos con los otros? ¿Y cómo todo este vínculo emerge, mientras la revolución avanza de ser la convicción de un pequeño grupo social, hasta ser el clima político en comunidades enteras?

Yo pienso que hay elementos de la práctica comunista que son buenos puntos de partida —incluida la orientación de Mao Zedong en “Contra el liberalismo” (un ensayo argumentando a favor de la honestidad y el proceder correctamente entre revolucionarios). En la práctica colectiva que los maoístas llaman “crítica mutua y autocrítica” —enfrentando los errores (incluso, grandes errores) por vías colectivas de tal modo que se ayude a los compañeros en la superación a través del compromiso y confianza personal para la transformación.

Iniciación Comunista 2

Yo asistía a una conferencia de jóvenes comunistas en la cual hablaría sobre investigación, escribir y la expresión de ideas. Y escuché la historia de un joven hermano indagar con un veterano comunista (una persona mayor) por consejos sobre la forma “correcta” para iniciar relaciones sexuales con alguien él consideraba muy especial.

Había algo conmovedor y positivo en esto. Él estaba consciente sobre la actitud machista que como norma enfrentan las mujeres. Y él estaba consciente sobre el deseo de nuestro movimiento para crear las condiciones que permita a las mujeres jóvenes unirse, sin que se sientan “carne fresca” para los hombres sin compromisos dentro del movimiento. Y este joven quería iniciar unas relaciones consistentes con nuestros valores y demás.

Pero, desafortunadamente, él había entrado a un movimiento que no había vertido mucho pensamiento sobre este asunto. No había (que yo sepa) mucha discusión, debate, síntesis, ensayos, sumarios sobre estos procesos cruciales en la vida humana. Estos procesos están profundamente envueltos en la liberación e igualdad de la mujer —maternidad, noviazgo, matrimonio, intimidad, experimentación, solidaridad viva, cuidado de los niños, educación libertadora, divorcio, resolución de conflictos interpersonales, perdón y transformación, cuidado y responsabilidad uno por el otro en la enfermedad y muerte, formas de celebración y festividades.

(Colateral: Hay un interesante libro sobre la proliferación de festivales de comunidades en la Rusia Soviética… ¿cuánto entendemos de esto como parte de una nueva sociedad y su cultura?)

Un movimiento revolucionario vivo necesita ser envuelto por un sentido de nueva cultura revolucionaria, no sólo arte sino modos del ser y sus significados. Vías simbólicas que expresen ese significado y ese ser. Un movimiento revolucionario vivo necesita acumular, transmitir cuerpo de prácticas y debates de la nueva “sabiduría,” la cual ayuda a la gente imaginar (en el ahora), cómo una nueva sociedad puede manejar todas las muchas contradicciones de la vida humana.

Un sistema cultural como ese no puede ser inventado desde cero —como si nosotros y la sociedad fuéramos hojas de papel en blanco. Es un sistema que los pueblos vivos crean, recrean, refinan y transforman una y otra vez —un proceso de experimentación al cual deberíamos dar bienvenida y en el cual deberíamos participar activamente.


[1] La traducción literal de esta frase poética no hace sentido en español… y no encuentro ningún significado por el cual pueda traducirla. Lo más cercano que puedo decir en español es “Candela al jarro hasta que suelte el fondo” pero no ajusta en el contexto. Mi mejor opción es no traducirla.

[2] Negro es bello y Descuélgate y expande tu mente, respectivamente.

[3] Mike se refiere al Brit Milah o ceremonia judía, el pacto de circuncisión. En lenguaje yiddish: Bris. El Mohel es la persona entrenada para realizar la circuncisión a niños a los 8 días de edad.

 

“The Central Park Five”: How the NYPD and Media Went “Wilding” on Black Teens


central park five

This comes from salon.com.

Indeed, the jogger case did capture much of what was wrong with New York and America, but not exactly the way we thought it did at the time. It illustrated the way we respond to powerful narratives about race, sex and gender, even when they turn out not to make sense. It represented a massive failure of law enforcement, journalism and public imagination, and it led to the last major wrongful-conviction case of the 20th century.

“The Central Park Five”: New York’s darkest hour

Ken Burns tackles the dreadful tale of the “Central Park jogger” — and the five young men who didn’t rape her.

by ANDREW O’HEHIR

If you lived in New York in 1989 – hell, if you lived in Americain 1989 and were over 12 years old – then you remember the story of the Central Park jogger. It was a terrible case that seemed to epitomize everything that had gone wrong in America’s greatest city during the reigns of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — the toxic combination of exploding Wall Street wealth, skyrocketing crime, the crack epidemic and worsening racial tension. This was the “Bonfire of the Vanities” New York, the “American Psycho” New York, in which newly created or reinforced classes, the super-rich and the alienated poor, faced off in nearly open warfare. The legendary power of that failing city is such that many contemporary visitors to New York still expect the Bronx to be on fire and Central Park to be an uninhabited zone of “muggers and trash,” in the words of my mother-in-law, and are startled by the affluent chain-store bustle of 21st century Manhattan.

Indeed, the jogger case did capture much of what was wrong with New York and America, but not exactly the way we thought it did at the time. It illustrated the way we respond to powerful narratives about race, sex and gender, even when they turn out not to make sense. It represented a massive failure of law enforcement, journalism and public imagination, and it led to the last major wrongful-conviction case of the 20th century. As is eerily depicted in “The Central Park Five,” a new film co-directed by legendary documentarian Ken Burns, his daughter Sarah Burns and David McMahon, what happened to a 28-year-old investment banker named Trisha Meili on a pleasant April night in 1989 fed all too perfectly into the public’s anxiety and hysteria.

Meili went running from her Upper East Side apartment through Central Park that evening, as she often did. Partway through her run, she was assaulted on a lonely stretch of park road and was severely beaten with a heavy object, stripped naked, raped and left for dead. When she was found a few hours later in the woods near 92nd Street, she was close to death from hypothermia and blood loss, and her skull had been so badly fractured that one eye was out of its socket. That she survived at all was remarkable; that she regained most of her faculties and an adult level of physical and mental competence was a miracle. (Meili revealed her name in 2003 when she published a book, but such was the divisiveness of the case that black-oriented newspapers and radio stations had already made it public, in defiance of the usual convention.)

Very rapidly – much too rapidly, in retrospect – the police rounded up a group of teenage boys, a subset of a much larger group of 25 or 30 kids from Harlem who had apparently been roaming through the park that night, up to no good. Some of the boys had attacked a homeless person, a couple riding bicycles and a male jogger near the Central Park Reservoir (although, to be clear, the kids accused of the Meili rape insist they had nothing to do with any of that). As longtime New York newspaper columnist Jim Dwyer observes in the Burns film, what happened next was understandable: The Meili attack occurred not far away from where teenage boys were known to have assaulted other people at about the same time. From a law enforcement point of view, it was logical to assume, at least initially, that there was a connection.

And so it was that five juvenile defendants, all of them between 14 and 16 years old – Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana and Korey Wise – became the focus of an entire city’s pent-up frustration about crime and urban decay. The symbolism was just too much: five dark-skinned youths running wild in the night versus a slight, pretty, high-achieving white woman who worked for Salomon Brothers. New York’s tabloid headline writers and TV talking heads went nuts, unleashing animalistic stereotypes that seemed to belong to the Jim Crow South rather than a modern, multicultural city that was about to elect its first black mayor. The teenagers were repeatedly described as a “wolf pack” engaged in a ritual gang activity called “wilding” (a term possibly made up or misheard by a police officer).

a

Feminist activists, understandably angry about the slipshod or careless investigation and prosecution of sex crimes, jumped on board. The prosecutors assigned to the case, Linda Fairstein and Elizabeth Lederer, were legitimate female pioneers and made it clear that this case would be different. After police announced that four of the five kids had confessed to the assault — following a day and a night of sleepless and lawyerless interrogation – it essentially never entered anyone’s mind that they might not have done it. Then-mayor Ed Koch, to his everlasting shame, went on TV and urged people not to believe the defendants’ mothers’ protestations of innocence. As the Rev. Calvin Butts, one of New York’s most eminent black preachers, puts it, many African-Americans had become afraid of their own children in those years, and most people in the black community were content to surrender these boys to their fate and move on. (Four of the five defendants were African-American, while Santana is mostly of Latino heritage.)

All four of the boys who had confessed recanted before trial, saying they had been coerced into implicating each other in a crime they knew nothing about. Even more strikingly, Fairstein and Lederer had no physical evidence linking the boys to the victim, which was remarkable considering the amount of blood and other bodily fluids found at the scene. Semen found in the victim’s body did not match any of the defendants, and no traces of her blood, hair or skin could be found on any of them. (In fact, even in 1989 the crime-scene analysis indicated that all the DNA evidence found on Meili’s body came from a single, unknown person.) So the entire case rested on an incoherent web of confessions that were contradictory on nearly every detail: The boys could not agree on what Meili looked like, what she was wearing, where or when she had been assaulted, or who had done what to her. As Dwyer notes, the chronology of events that police provided to journalists didn’t make sense, and it even provided a likely alibi: Meili’s running route would have brought her to the place where she was assaulted around 9:20 p.m., when the defendants had been seen by multiple witnesses near the reservoir, about half a mile further south.

None of that mattered. All five were convicted and served prison terms ranging from 6 to 12 years, and to this day quite a few people insist that they are “most likely” guilty (to borrow the weasel words of an internal NYPD investigation). That’s despite the fact that in 2002 Matias Reyes, a serial rapist with multiple convictions, confessed to the crime, providing specifics that no one else could have known and that closely fit the forensic evidence. (He was already serving a life sentence and had little to lose.) His DNA, which police and prosecutors had in their files all along, was a perfect match with the samples found on Meili.

Relying on Dwyer’s reporting of the case, interviews with other experts and extensive discussion with the five defendants, who are now adult men in their 30s (McCray declined to appear on camera, but his voice is heard), “The Central Park Five” should go a long way toward demolishing any remaining doubt about guilt or innocence in this 23-year-old rape case that has cast such a long shadow. As Dwyer says, the coverage of the five men’s official exoneration in 2003 (when a judge ordered their convictions vacated) was arguably worse than the coverage of the initial case. It was plagued with resentment, resistance and denial, as if we didn’t want to face the fact that this perfect story of New York’s nightmare years had turned into another kind of story altogether: a story of racism, paranoia and groupthink; a story of injustice piled on top of injury and of one terrible wrong compounded by another.

“The Central Park Five” is now playing in New York and Los Angeles, and will be available on-demand from cable, satellite and online providers, beginning Dec. 7. It will also air on PBS early in 2013.

Latin America: Revolution and the Art of Dreaming


This was first posted in counterpunch. H/T to Baki Wright for the heads up.

“The arts and the world of dreams play an essential role in the Latin American struggle for justice, an egalitarian society, and even in the armed struggle.

Arts teach people how to dream, and in turn the dreams are pushing societies forward.

Without the emotional outbursts, without poetry and the powerful lyrical songs, without desperation and the exposed emotions, without the ability to dream… There would never be a victorious struggle for true freedom and justice in Latin America.”

Poetry and Latin American Revolution

by ANDRE VLTCHEK

The world is once again in turmoil. Several Arab nations are clearly in a state of mayhem, rebelling against decades of injustice. But their struggle is not always based on ideology, and it is not well defined. The West is taking full advantage of the confusion, pushing its own agenda, destabilizing countries like Syria or attacking them directly, as was the case with Libya.

Africa is bleeding, destroyed by the new wave and breed of European and North American colonialism. About 10 million people in the Congo have died in the last few years during the slaughter encouraged by the economic and geo-political interests of former and present colonial powers.

The West is hailing both India and Indonesia for their high economic growth, but both countries are squarely failing to deliver social justice, both clinging to the appalling ogre of feudalism.

“Possibly the Arab countries are now where Latin American nations were ten years ago”, suggested Noam Chomsky during our encounter, in June 2012 at MIT in Boston.

Possibly, but there also appear to be so many differences, both historical and cultural.

The South American continent is winning its struggle for independence and for real freedom. There are some setbacks, like the Western-backed coup in Paraguay and the state in which hopelessly divided Colombia exists. But on the whole, the South American continent has won its long and epic battle against imperialism, or at least for now it has.

The question is – could Latin America share its experience with the rest of the world? Would it be able to inspire the Arab people, Indians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, or Africans?

I don’t know the answer, but I think we have to try. It is our responsibility, our duty. Our goal, our struggle, our people are not petty. Our revolutions have been based on brightness, internationalism and solidarity.

Let us be naïve if sharing and spreading hope is the proof of naiveté; let us fight the negativism and defeatism that are helping to throw billions of lives into permanent state of misery – let us fight them with our good will and with our big hearts, as we fought for so long in the mountains, plains and jungles of Latin America itself.

If the official Western press laughs at us, so be it. Today Latin America has plenty to share with the world: it is building tens of millions of dwellings for the poor, it is immunizing children, feeds those who are hungry and educating those who were for centuries confined to the darkness of ignorance. It votes at the United Nations against neo-colonialist designs. And it is increasingly supportive of the countries that are threatened by the Empire.

But let us not lecture; let us just share.

I am inviting my Latin American comrades and colleagues to produce an inspiring series of analyses of our struggle, our revolutions. I invite them to explain the decades of determined fight for social justice, and for freedom as we (not the West) see it.

Let those reports be written by us – by Latin Americans and by those (like myself), who lived in Latin America for years, decades, until we got Latinized and gained a new identity.

Let these reports be distributed by some of the great progressive publications and sites, including CounterPunch and Z.

And I am appealing to our comrades and colleagues in the Arab countries, Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan and India to translate our reports into their local languages, and distribute them widely in their countries. Then, let us engage in a direct discussion.

Let us see if the South American success can be duplicated; if Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Brazil might inspire the men and women of Egypt, Morocco, Bahrain, India, Uganda, DR Congo, Indonesia, and Pakistan.

* * *

I am writing this essay in order to talk about the poetry, and about the songs, that have had such a decisive influence on the changes and revolutions in South America. We did not win because of our brains only; we won because of our hearts, and because of the great talent of our creative men and women, their ability to move others, to inspire and often to enrage the people all over the continent.

I am not sure whether the cultural differences are too big or whether our songs are too distinct. I don’t know whether the same things that had touched us and brought us onto the streets and at the barricades, would manage to touch the people in Karachi or Cairo. I swear I don’t know. But let us try. Our songs and poems are good and they helped us to win. Sharing them would cause no damage!

What I can testify, is that whenever I go to India, to North or sub-Saharan Africa or to the Middle East, I am being relentlessly questioned about Venezuela and Bolivia, Cuba and Brazil.

Many people have ‘heard something’, but they instinctively distrust the Western sources. Let there be no go-betweens; let them receive the information from us directly.

And instead of just talking, let us write. Let us share our victories and the complexities of our struggle. Let us explain what it took for our beloved Latin America to raise, and to stand tall, as it is standing now.

POETRY AND REVOLUTION

There are three houses, three dwellings, that used to belong to one of the greatest poets of the 20th Century, to ‘Don Pablo’ as he was known in Chile, or Pablo Neruda as he has been known all over the world. All three houses are stunning, all three he helped to build with his own hands.

One house is attached to a hill, in a bohemian neighborhood of Bellavista, in Santiago de Chile. The second one is in the port city of Valparaiso, commanding a stunning view of the bay, the port and the open ocean, spreading towards the horizon. The last one stands in what used to be a humble coastal village, called Isla Negra, ‘Black Island’, which is actually not an island at all but a cluster of houses, near a marvelous rocky coast. This is where Pablo Neruda wrote some of his most powerful poems, in a tiny wooden shack facing the enormous waves of the Pacific.

Many of Neruda’s poems were full of outrage; they were like a passionate call to arms. Don Pablo was a Communist, and he believed in the Latin American struggle for true independence, he believed in revolution and above all –in the unity of this continent. His, arguably the greatest and the most monumental poem, is called “The Heights of Machu Picchu”. It ends in spectacular rebelliousness and solidarity:

And give me silence, give me water, hope.

Give me the struggle, the iron, the volcanoes.

Let bodies cling like magnets to my body.

Come quickly to my veins and to my mouth.

Speak through my speech, and through my blood.

But despite its power, this was not the poem that had been chosen to be engraved on the columns in front of La Sebastiana, and it is not the poem that, during the long years of fascist darkness, inspired young men and women to fight the horrible dictatorship installed from abroad. It is not the poem that made them risk their lives, to die for Chile and for its freedom.

Surprisingly, some of the most simple and the most humble verses written to a woman he loved, actually became that symbol; one of the battle cries of the resistance:

…The fifth thing is your eyes,

my Matilda, my beloved,

I do not want to sleep without your eyes,

I do not want to live without you looking at me:

I will give the spring

for that you’ll keep watching me.

And here exactly lies the secret! The Latin American Revolution and its recent victories have not been constructed solely on the ideals related to the struggle for social justice. Those who think that it is only the Left Wing rationale, dialectics, and well-defined pragmatic goals or principles, that brought the recent success and the victories to almost the entire continent, are fully misunderstandingThe Process.

The revolutions in this part of the world have been equally about the pathos, about the poetry, about sentimental outbursts, about the arts: they were, and were expected to be essentially quixotic, emotional and beautiful.

* * *

The arts and the world of dreams play an essential role in the Latin American struggle for justice, an egalitarian society, and even in the armed struggle.

Here, the rebellion often ferments from the lines of the poems, from songs, from canvases. The Theatres of Buenos Aires and of Santiago de Chile, can be as explosive as car trunks packed with semtex.

Often there is no borderline between the revolution and poetry; they blend together.

“In the novel ‘Love in the Time of Cholera,’ a man, Florentino Ariza, had all his dreams shattered when the love of his life refused him”, a theatre actor in a Chilean port city of Valparaiso once told me.

He was supposed to act in my play and we met to discuss his role, but instead the meeting turned out to be philosophical.

“Fermina Daza married someone else, and Florentino had only two options: to give up his love for her or to fight… and to wait… No matter how long it would take, just wait. He decided to fight and to wait. He waited for fifty-one years, nine months and four days… But in the end he won. The woman he loved became his… at the age of seventy something, but his. Do you understand?”

“He was obsessed…” I began to analyze.

“No!” shouted the actor in desperation. How could I be so thick? He ordered another round of white wine witch cherimoya juice “Don’t you see? It is like with the revolution! We waited; we fought. We sacrificed so much… But it is here. The victory is finally ours.”

Of course Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a great Communist novelist. And of course his ‘Love in the Time of Cholera’ is a tremendous literary achievement, powerful and complex. But I never thought about the parallel – Fermina Daza and the revolution. ‘But why not?’ I thought, downing the wine, as the accordionist began playing another desperate tango right behind my back, ‘Why not? Waiting for Fermina Daza is like waiting for the revolution…’

* * *

Stories, books, poetry, music, dance, and theatre – they are all very essential here. No revolution in Latin America could happen without them.

Before deciding to go to the barricades, the people of this continent have to be touched, moved, not just ‘convinced’.

A few years ago, while visiting my Australian friend Tamara Pierson, in the Venezuelan city of Merida in the middle of Andes (Tamara is a person who gave plenty to Venezuela and to the revolution), my visit coincided with a government campaign of giving away millions of books to the poor, to the masses. Classics like Don Quixote were literally handed out by the tons and all for free, all over the country. This was in addition to almost complimentary editions, of poetry and the masterpieces of world literature, available in all the government run bookshops.

The gesture was a great one, but it was not just a gesture! It was a very logical and strategic move, because what Venezuela, Bolivia, Uruguay, Ecuador and other countries were fighting for were actually very basic principles of humanism. One did not have to go all the way to Karl Marx, Chairman Mao, or Lenin or Chavez; the essence was all there – in the classics of Victor Hugo, Cervantes, Maxim Gorki, Tolstoy and Tagore.

Under the pretext that working class people and peasants were simply brainless beasts who could never understand intellectual peaks like poetry and novels, elites in much of the world ‘reserved’ the rights for philosophical thought and ‘noble emotions’ strictly for themselves. In direct contrast, in some of the countries in Latin America, we said that everyone could and should have right to think, and to feel, as we began distributing the great books to everybody. By defying all the elitist theories, even the most humble people actually began to read the great classics, enjoying and easily understanding them.

Then more they understood, the more they supported those who treated them as equals. They came to the revolution not through ideology, but through natural human instincts. They simply embraced those who respected them, were sharing with them and treated them with kindness.

Exposing society to the arts also began to have a very positive and deep influence on the many trends in progressive Latin American societies. What is the point, for instance, of ‘fighting’ against domestic violence, if people are only exposed from their early age to brutal, vulgar videos, and standardized, mostly soulless and commercially driven entertainment? Isn’t it clear that a man who reads Marti, Neruda or Tagore will less likely beat and terrorize his wife and children?

People accustomed to comparing good and evil, not superficially, or because they are obliged to by their religion or ideology, but voluntarily and in depth, would logically also refuse to observe idly, as marginalized people are rotting alive in the slums or directly on the streets, in front of their eyes.

* * *

“Tamara, have you liked my theatre play ‘Ghosts of Valparaiso’?” I asked my friend before departing from Merida.

“My boyfriend and I read it aloud, twice, for two nights in a row”, explained with an absolutely serious face this tough activist with revolutionary spirit. “And we cried for two nights straight”. There was nothing more to add and I was happy; by South American standards she gave me some of the highest marks of appreciation, pure and sincere.

I knew men in Peru and Colombia and in other places of the continent who would cry when reading the poems of Marti or Cesar Vallejo at night, then wake up in the morning, and go without any hesitation into the most beastly battles, with absolutely no fear. I knew men who would write poems to their wives or girlfriends in the trenches. Here, in Latin America, to feel, to be emotional is not something that is considered shameful or ridiculous, as long as a person is strong and tough when the strength and toughness are truly essential and necessary.

* * *

Arts teach people how to dream, and in turn the dreams are pushing societies forward.

Poetry is not only about the passionate outbursts; it is often about compassion, kindness and pensiveness. The emotional, melancholic cushion wrapped around many poems, can habitually absorb the most piercing pain, and encourage forgiveness.

But it is not only poetry that shapes the Latin psyche and helps to form complex and fascinating national and continental identity; it is entire wide scale of artistic expressions: from cinema and theatre to literature and music.

It is also a lifestyle – those endless Friday and Saturday nights when big groups of friends gather, staying up till the morning, exchanging ideas, information, dreams and sorrows, migrating from one theatre to another, from one cinema to another, moving between the exhibitions and galleries, sometimes dancing and sometimes drinking, but always talking.

No social networking, no Skype or Internet communication can replace those direct exchanges and stormy debates, as no electronic media can replace the warmth of human hands, or expression of a friend’s eyes, or movement of the lips.

Many great social and political concepts of Latin America were created during the nights, around the café tables, after watching with friends some great works of art either on the stage or on the screen.

The arts not only educate, they encourage people to think and to feel, helping them to make essential distinctions between good and evil. Any revolution stripped of these qualities can simply lead to carnage, as it already has in so many unfortunate places.

Not surprisingly, almost all Latin American revolutions, and almost all of them were based on poetry and longing for love and beauty, were extremely ‘decent’ and ‘moderate’. It was the Western-backed fascist backlash that employed beastliness, slaughter and rape.

* * *

It is a small wonder, that, in almost all the countries that had fallen under Western neo-colonial rule, the arts were immediately marginalized or destroyed, artists and many great intellectuals imprisoned or directly liquidated. It is logical, as the last thing that the fascist rulers want, is to have cultured and well informed passionate masses.

But even more destructive and effective than the gallows and executioner’s noose had been relentless campaigns aimed at discrediting the arts as something irrelevant, on par with ‘entertainment’. This was extremely successful in Southeast Asia, but I also believe, in many countries of the Arab world.

Thinking had been described as tiring and outdated, ‘serious topics’ (read: everything that could improve the country or fate of its people) as boring, and pure feelings as negatively ‘sentimental’.

To be ‘hip’ and ‘cool’, one has to be ‘light’. And it means accepting the dogma by watching Hollywood and Disney, listening to pre-selected tunes, eating pre-fabricated food.

Latin America resisted. It turned serious topics into beautiful masterpieces. Poets and bards kept packing the stadiums, while cinemas on the main streets of Buenos Aires and Santiago de Chile were routinely and stubbornly showing the Iranian or Chinese art releases. The continent continued producing long poems and long books, as well as over-sized essays. To be frivolously ‘light’ commanded no respect here. ‘Live to the fullest, but keep thinking and creating’ could easily pass as a local motto.

* * *

Before the Argentinean military dictatorship went to the dogs in 1982, one of the greatest singers of all time – Mercedes Sosa – returned home from the exile. Loved by the entire continent, admired for her powerful, prophetic voice, she was a striking opposite to what the mass media all over the world had been promoting for decades as the ‘perfect female’. Ms Sosa was plump, and she was indigenous. But this was not some Sunset Boulevard; this was El Puerto.

In the evening she entered, determinately, the supreme temple of ‘European culture’ in Argentina – and one of the greatest opera houses in the world: Teatro Colon in Buenos Aires.

The theater was packed. Some of the songs she was going to sing were still banned. But her appearance was, in a way, a promise that the horrors of fascism were going to be over soon. Those who attended the concert later recalled that the atmosphere in the theatre was electrifying. She was expected to challenge Videla and the other rapists and murderers from the ranks of ruling military junta, to challenge them with her powerful but bare voice. She was expected to sing all those tunes that kept men, women and children alive, emotionally and spiritually, during the long years of darkness. And she did. She sang as no one else in the world could have done.

She sang a song about the burning sun and about a girl called Maria, Maria va; ‘Maria is going’. And then other songs, and it was all there, entire resistance, passion, love, revolution – in one single night, in one single voice of this exceptional lady.

The recording of the concert became one of the greatest classics of all times. The audience cried and it roared. It was over – the suffering was over. The songs, for years sung in the cellars and backyards, hummed in prisons and torture chambers, whistled at night – those beloved songs were now purring like tears and like blood, freely, from the stage of the Buenos Aires opera house.

But what is it, in what she sang, that challenged the entire system? Was it a call for battle, an insult to the system; was it politics?

She sang a ballad composed by Violetta Parra, the Chilean founder of the Nueva Cancion movement, a great musician and poet who committed suicide in 1967.

Gracias a la vida que me ha dado tanto

Me dio dos luceros, que cuando los abro,

Perfecto distingo lo negro del blanco

Y en el alto cielo su fondo estrellado

Y en las multitudes el hombre que yo amo

(Thanks to the life that has given me so much

It gave me two bright stars and when I open them

I distinguish perfectly the black from the white

And in the high sky its starred bottom

And in the crowd the man I love)

She sang a stunning and melancholic song, about an Argentinean poet Alfonsina Storni, “Alfonsina and The Sea”, who threw herself in desperation into the sea at Mar de Plata:

You are leaving Alfonsina

With your loneliness

Which new poems

Did you go find?

An ancient voice

Made of wind and salt

Breaks your soul

And takes it away

And you float away

As in dreams

Asleep, Alfonsina

Dressed by the sea

“So where is the revolution?” an impatient young reformer in Cairo or Casablanca may ask. “All that sadness, and longing for love, and melancholy and beauty… all that parting… despair… but where is the call to barricades, where is the rebellion?”

‘But it is there… it is present… in all those love poems, don’t you hear?’ the Latin Americans would argue.

All of a sudden things get more direct.

As if hearing this discussion in Colon, Mercedes Sosa suddenly changes the rhythm. She begins singing an old beautiful melonga from Uruguay:

I have so many brothers,

I can’t even count

The audience stops breathing. It knows what is coming. The night is approaching its climax.

Sosa sings about the warm hands of the poor people, and then suddenly about death, about ‘our death, the death of our people that is following us’ no matter where we go.

There is absolute silence, which gradually changes to a deafening roar. Mercedes Sosa makes one single strike, short, perfect and deadly, like the most refined move of the samurai’s sword:

I have so many brothers,

I can’t even count

And I have one sister

The most beautiful one

Whose name is freedom!

Several months later military junta is forced to step down.

Mercedes Sosa passed away in 2009, but the Latin American revolution survived. Before Ms Sosa’s final journey, Cristina Kirchner – her greatest admirer and by then the President of Argentina – parted with her on behalf of the nation, and the entire Latin America, in a symbolic and highly emotional ceremony. In many ways these two powerful women transformed, and became the symbol of modern Argentina. It is likely that in their youth, Mercedes Sosa transformed Cristina Kirchner.

* * *

Without the emotional outbursts, without poetry and the powerful lyrical songs, without desperation and the exposed emotions, without the ability to dream… There would never be a victorious struggle for true freedom and justice in Latin America.

We are sentimental, yes. And we are dreamers. But we are also tough. And our world is mostly abstract. We are… so many things; so many diverse things.

Even in Cuba, one of the most talented and popular of the musicians and bards, Sylvio Rodriguez, sings very rarely about the revolution in direct terms. Even he is predominantly abstract. Almost all his great songs are philosophical, and very few are openly calling to arms, although somehow after listening to them, one would go and die defending Cuba, with no regrets. In La Maza he is asking what it would be like:

If I didn’t believe in the toughest

If I didn’t believe in the desire

If I didn’t believe in what I believe

If I didn’t believe in something pure

If I didn’t believe in every wound

If I didn’t believe in what comes around

If I didn’t believe in what hides behind

Making oneself brother with life

If I didn’t believe in whoever listens to me

If I didn’t believe in what hurts

If I didn’t believe in what stays

If I didn’t believe in what fights!

We learned that the dreams, the emotional education; are all necessary, even essential preparatory work for the revolution. How could one go into battle without the words of poetry on his lips, without the person he loves in his heart, and with total dedication to the country he wants to defend and reshape? It is the Latin American way. And it is working here. Whatever the world thinks, it is working here!

For years we had better poems and we had better songs than our opponents. For years our goals and the humanism were like two inseparable twins. For years we were fighting and losing, because they had more tanks and more money to corrupt our military and our ‘elites’.

And then, suddenly, things began to change.

You see; it is all about values. One steals from the nation, because expensive cars and villas bring more ‘respect’ than honesty, knowledge, kindness, or beauty. There is simply no way one could fight corruption without making a determined attempt to change the value system.

To bring this thesis to its extreme: if one well-written poem would evoke more admiration from the people, from the nation, than a bright-red Ferrari, people would stop stealing and begin writing. In Cuba, the majority would opt for a poem. In countries like Venezuela, there is an entire generation of people growing up on the same principles.

* * *

One of the most iconic poems of the Latin American revolution is, “The Parrots” by the Nicaraguan poet Ernesto Cardenal:

My friend Michel is an army officer

In Somoto up near the Honduran border,

And he told me he had found some contraband parrots

Waiting to be smuggled to the United States

To learn to speak English there.

There were 186 parrots

With 47 already dead in their cages.

He drove them back where they’d been taken from

And as the lorry approached a place known as The Plains

Near the mountains which were these parrot’s home

(behind those plains the mountains stand huge)

the parrots got excited, started beating their wings

and shoving against their cage-sides.

When the cages were let open

They all shot out like an arrow shower

Straight for their mountains.

The Revolution did the same for us I think:

It freed us from the cages

Where they trapped us to talk English,

It gave us back the country

From which we were uprooted,

Their green mountains restored to the parrots

By parrot-green comrades.

But there were 47 that died.

I met Ernesto Cardenal only once. I was very young then, the Chilean dictatorship had only recently collapsed, and I was taking a break in Santiago, after spending several terrible months covering the brutal civil war in neighboring Peru, for several European publications.

Cardenal came to read at a prominent book fair at the magnificently restored train station, turned into one of the major cultural centers of the city: Estacion Mapocho.

There wasn’t really a stampede – Chilean crowds are too polite for that – but one had to use elbows to secure entry. The enormous space was packed, mostly with young people.

This author was one of the icons of the Latin American Left –a poet, later a revolutionary, later a Minister of Culture of Nicaragua during the first Sandinista government, later a priest but still a revolutionary, still a poet… he spoke very little. He lifted his huge book – his then latest and monumental ‘Cosmic Chants’ – and began to read.

Each poem evoked a similar reaction, as that to goals scored by the ‘revolutionary footballer,’ Diego Maradona. This was sheer madness. People were screaming, hugging each other, and crying.

Cardenal’s voice was like that of a prophet, of a prosecutor, and a bard – all in one.

I had to speak to him; I had to understand where all this strength, this magic, was coming from. After his appearance I ran backstage. There were girls; there were middle-aged women, journalists, and photographers. All of them pushing, all of them desperately besieging the poet.

From the first moment it appeared that I had no chance. But I was not ready to give up.

“Don Ernesto!” I screamed. “Don Ernesto, I have to talk to you!”

He noticed me. “Then talk if you have to!” He shouted over the head of the crowd.

“But…” I pointed at the people. “Could we set up a meeting; an appointment?”

“Kid! “ He screamed in despair. “Kid, did I hear you say appointment? The planet is burning, and people are suffering everywhere. There is no time for appointments! Speak up now or get lost!”

I spoke. And after that I virtually have never asked for any appointment again, usually losing all my interest if someone suggested setting up one for me. I concluded that Cardenal was essentially correct: If something is either urgent and it can’t wait then one should speak and act immediately, or it is not urgent and dealing with it is a waste of time.

* * *

Latin America is full of legends, fairytales and supernatural beings, and stories. Just go to the old Chilean port city of Valparaiso, go to the Peruvian and Bolivian Andes, to the Brazilian and Venezuelan jungles. Go there and listen.

As with those love poems, on the surface of it the stories and fairytales have nothing in common with the revolution, but that is only on the surface. Look and listen much closer and you will realize that the imaginary universe of many thinkers and revolutionaries, their world of dreams, is often made up of similar stuff, such as the ideas for a better world; a better society.

In South America, there are legendary creatures, ghosts, and fantastic past events, all in multitude, and all over the continent. There are many people living ‘in their own world’ here, or more precisely in two distinct worlds: one that belongs in reality, and one that belongs to their dreams.

‘And why not?’ many would say. It is not that the world that we, humans, created is always so precious, so wonderful. Each man, each woman and each child should not feel guilty or ashamed for searching for inspiration in their own imagination; in a secret universe made to accommodate their desires and sensitivities.

While what I am describing now is absolutely the same in North Asia – in China, Japan and Korea – I am often misunderstood in North Africa, in the Middle East, and even in the Sub-Continent. I don’t know why.

But back to Latin America: people here are, as we have determined earlier, passionate dreamers.

And their inner universe, their universe of dreams often opens, dreams overflow, and try to improve the reality of this world.

Arguably the greatest living South American writer is Eduardo Galeano, the author of two monumental works on the conquest and plunder of the continent: “Open Veins of Latin America” and the trilogy called “Memory of Fire”.

Once, as we were sitting in his Café Brazilero in Montevideo, I asked him, sarcastically, whether “The Veins of Latin America were still open, after all those years after his book was first published?”

But Galeano, an author of dreams, has a tendency not to answer the question in a concrete manner:  “The other day I was walking through the streets of Buenos Aires and I bumped into Count Dracula,” he explained with a stone-serious face, which made me think that in his own way he was actually not joking. “Dracula looked very thin, undernourished, destroyed. I asked him what happened and he replied: ’Times are tough’. With the US and UK on the loose, plundering and sucking blood from the world, a decent vampire has no chance. The competition is too stiff.”

That is how many man and women speak here; often some of the greatest of them; and the majority of the people have no difficulty in understanding them. The language of dreams and imagination is one of the main idioms of this vast continent – language that is understood and spoken in all of its corners!

Unless it has escaped some of my readers – all, or at least the great majority of those great men who are leading the continent in the revolutionary direction – Fidel Castro, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez – are incurable dreamers or what could be described as determined ‘romantics’. Listen to their speeches, read their essays; it is so obvious.

Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara was clearly a quixotic figure. Cuba in general is a quixotic state. That is one of the main reasons why they, both ‘Che’ and Cuba, are loved and respected to such a great extent, in so many parts of the world.

Wasn’t it the supreme expression of idealism, the great and powerful poem of its own style, for a small Caribbean nation under siege and under attack from the mightiest empire on the earth, to send its best sons to fight and to die for the freedom of the far away African nations of Angola, Namibia and Congo; or to send some of the most talented men and women – the doctors – to serve the poorest nations of the world without expecting anything in return?

* * *

It is all intertwined here, the poetry and the struggle, the pathos, the music and the revolution.

Poems are written with ink and with blood, while verses and the strings of guitars carry on the revolution.

Imagination of the continent is limitless, creativity astonishing. But there are limits, too; there are limits to the art.

One of the greatest Argentinean painters, Alberto Bruzzone, once said: “I cannot paint flowers or motherhood, when they are killing my students on the street!”

Bruzzone was so much ahead of his times – especially ahead of most of the artists in the West. How many artists in California or in London could exclaim: “I refuse to produce frivolous, brainless films, while my empire is keeping half of the world in virtual servitude and misery!”

But back to the poetry: some men and women here wrote enormous verses with their own lives. Be it Che or Hugo Chavez, Sub-Commandant Marcos, Fidel or now the young leader of the student revolt in Chile – Camila Vallejo.

And of course, Pablo Neruda, Jose Marti, President Salvador Allende.

President Allende died in the flames of the old baroque palace – La Moneda – as the Chilean air force bombed the place, and busily committed the treason on 9-11-1973, serving the interests of the United States and its corporations.

They say Allende committed suicide. But I am much too Latino by now, and I have my own interpretation of events, my own imaginary world, and I am determined to stick to it.

Allende knew about the coup. Many in Chile that were close to him, told me that he was well informed… But being a real democrat, he refused to arrest anyone just based on suspicion. So far these are the facts.

Now comes my own interpretation of the history, which I am freely implementing in all my fiction work: When the fighter jets began bombing The Presidential Palace, Allende stood up and began walking towards the huge baroque windows, towards the jets and towards his certain death. He was still the President of Chile; he was the democratically elected President of one of the oldest democracies on earth, until that day, of one of the most decent countries under the sun. He walked towards those pilots who betrayed him; who betrayed Chile, because no matter what they were doing, they were citizens of the country that he was entrusted to govern. He was walking towards them because he was not going to run away – he saw no point of running. He died walking proudly, undefeated, towards the roaring jets, towards the muzzles of their guns, towards the rockets attached under their wings. A man wearing thick-framed glasses, a very kind man, a true humanist.

As Allende made his first steps, Pablo Neruda was dying not far fromLa Moneda, from cancer. During the elections, Don Pablo was supposed to run as the candidate of the Communist Party of Chile, but he instead endorsed Allende, who represented La Unidad Popular.

Two great men, two towering personalities of Chile and the world were then, dying at the same time, not far from each other, although not exactly side-by-side. Their country, their most beautiful country on earth, was being ravished and was going to be raped for almost two decades, by hideous forces consisting of Western neo-colonialists and a local gang of spiteful and mediocre servants of the North.

Don Pablo already wrote his final poem. He parted with Matilda; he parted with his friends and with his nation. Allende was still writing his poem with his own body, his own flesh, and his blood.

This is one good example of how some of our best poems are written. This is where poetry and revolution merge; this is how they become one single and solid entity.

* * *

After the coup, the military packed the National Stadium in Santiago de Chile with thousands of prisoners. One of the greatest bards of Latin America – Victor Jarra – had his ribs and both of his hands broken. Soldiers threw a guitar at him: “Now sing for us”, they laughed. He did. He sang Venceremos straight to their faces. They machine-gunned him down. The way this great and proud life ended – that was another poem that inspired us, and finally led us to victory. You don’t cry for mercy when confronted by Fascism. You spit in its face and die, if you cannot win. Full stop.

And almost 30 years later, there was another beautiful ‘poem’ written by General Raúl Baduel, who headed Chávez’s old paratrooper division in Maracay, as he and others defeated, against all odds, the US-sponsored coup in Caracas, in 2002. Some poems are, and have to be written with steel.

* * *

So now we know what role poetry plays in Latin American revolutions. And of what the poetry consists of, here.

And how it merges with this continent that had been waiting for those long decades and centuries to be truly liberated. The continent that kept fighting and losing, fighting again and again, and saw its legitimate leaders murdered or overthrown by the North: in Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, and in so many other places.

It is all history now. The unity, solidarity, and tremendous force of creativity – all is alive and boiling, all is suddenly possible, reachable, and achievable.

But there are no celebrations yet, no fireworks, and there are tears and sadness all around, a melancholy. Both hopeful smiles and tears can be seen, often on the same face.

The revolution won, finally, on most of the continent.

But there were tens of millions that died.

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His book on Western imperialism in the  South Pacific – Oceania – is published by Lulu . His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and market-fundamentalist model is called “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear” (Pluto). After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website.

Spielberg’s Lincoln and agency of oppressed people


Slave revolt breaks out on a Southern plantation. Unearthing records of the events, clash over African American role in their own emancipation.

Intro by Mike Ely

What is the role of previously-powerless oppressed people in their own emancipation?

This is a fundamental question of life, politics and revolutionary theory. And very different answers to that question have produced very different perspectives on strategy, alliance and the political forms of liberation.

The American Civil War has long been a major arena for this debate. And it is not surprising: First, this war was a major event of emancipation in the first centuries of European colonization of North America. All other wars conducted by the United States were shamelessly about expansion, Manifest Destiny and empire.

But in this, the most bloody of U.S. wars, the central issue was African slavery. For the Confederate states, it was threats to slavery that triggered their secession. And for the states of the North and the federal government, the war started as a defense of the integrity of their national Union — but became a war for the abolition of slavery.

Entwined with the whole emergence and resolution of the Civil War was the struggle of the African people in the U.S. for their freedom — a struggle that started on the slave ships themselves, and on the slave plantations, in dozens of maroon communities, in hundreds of mass mutinies, and uncounted thousands of escapes. In the war itself, they fought in every imaginable way, as informants for the Union armies, as scouts, as insurgents behind Confederate lines, as organizers of countless work stoppages and escapes, and increasingly as uniformed fighters within the Union army itself. And, meanwhile, politically, the African American people and their most radical white coworkers waged a difficult struggle to ensure that the victory in this Civil War would lead to lasting emancipation — first by demanding the formal abolition of slavery and the arming of Black men, but then also seeking to establish the political power needed to overpower the plantation owning class in the struggle over post-war society.

As history shows, this became an experience involving both great victory over slavery and bitter historic defeat with the overthrow of Radical Reconstruction which imposed a semi-feudal form of serfdom, through sharecropping and the Jim Crow system . The question of alliance and “common cause” unraveled as the Northern capitalist leadership of the anti-slavery alliance pursued its class interests and in the 1880s reforged a new national governing coalition with the once-defeated plantation-owning class of the South. There are alliances, of course, in politics — but there emerges the burning question of maintaining independence and initiative among the oppressed, i.e. the question of who leads those alliances, and how betrayal in one moment emerges from the leadership of a previous moment.

At one extreme end of this debate is the paternal racist tradition — that for a hundred years adopted the slaveowners’ own view of African American people, as docile, passive bystanders in their own fate. In the hands of Confederates, that view propped up the argument that Africans were childlike inferiors that needed slavery for civilizing. In the hands of Jim Crow-era historians, those assumptions often continued, and African American slaves were depicted as numb and suffering victims who received their emancipation at the hands of the Northern ruling elite. (And you can see how that historical mythology played into particular liberal strategies during the civil rights struggle…)

Tremendous struggle and work took place in the realms of research and education to get a different narrative onstage. The actual struggle, contributions and fiery activity of slaves and African freemen were documented. WEB Dubois, Herbert Aptheker, and many other writers (often associated with the Communist movement) exposed both the hidden history of Black insurgency and also the extreme complexity of the alliances that ended slavery. The figures of Nat Turner, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman have since come to exemplify the heroic, tireless, and often violent actions of the oppressed in their own emancipation. That change in understanding was itself a result of popular struggle — particularly that engine of reconception unleashed by the fiery Black liberation upsurge of the late 1960s. The ghetto uprisings destroyed the mythology of Black passivity and nonviolence in that political present — and millions of minds were actively looking to destroy that mythology within dominant versions of history.

Controversy continued (and continues, obviously). Malcolm declared that if you put milk in your coffee it becomes weaker, becomes “integrated.” Black nationalist currents in the 1960s declared that “Black Liberation will come from a Black thing.” It declared a militant and impatient end to the whole framework of liberal reformism — the proclaiming of a central progressive role for America’s liberal establishment, the nauseating paternalism of liberal self-congratulation and (especially) the demand for a go-slow respecting of American capitalism, its central institutions and the political limits they prescribed..

At the same time, this Black nationalism came with built in strategic conflicts: How does one go alone as a minority nationality in a much larger and multinational society? What does the future look like? If liberal integration and assimilation are a demand for self-negation, is independence possible as an alternative strategy? And if not, is there a third path possible — of liberation within a revolutionized new multinational society in North America?

And, along side the Black nationalist arguments, there arose views that explored whether in a multinational U.S., political strategy could incorporate the fact that the oppressed classes too were multinational — i.e. that liberation (including the victory of Black liberation) was likely to come from a multinational thing — from some future, complex alliance involving many oppressed nationalities (Native Americans, Chicano people, immigrant people, African Americans, Puerto Rican people) and also (potentially) from significant radicalized and antiracist sections among the white people (including among poor and working people who are Euro-American).

Both views have a sense of the “agency of the oppressed.” The Black nationalist view often assumed that at a very basic level that no other sections of the people could be expected to understand or reliably support the struggle against oppression they themselves didn’t experience. (And here too the experience of the Civil War, and the reversal of Reconstruction, provides a painful legacy of the betrayal or flagging effort by those who were allies and co-fighters and leaders).

The more internationalist view assumed that many diverse kinds of people could develop a common struggle against all forms of oppression — and that a movement needed to be forged with exactly that kind of universality and broadness of mind.

I am currently working, with Nat Winn, on an assessment of the Maoist form of communism. And we hope to address what our new movement can learn (for  future strategic decisions) from the existing Maoist concepts around mass line and internationalism — which address precisely these core issues of agency and broad alliance.

For now, I’d like to share the following critique of Spielberg’s new film Lincoln — which seeks to situate this art in the context of actual history and America’s long debate over the agency and role of African American people.  I have not seen the film yet. I look forward to experiencing it with an open-mind (despite the fact that we have all watched Spielberg approach so many topics — from suburbia to the Holocaust — from the perspective that has its feet planted firmly among the relatively privileged.)

* * * * * * * * * *

Kate Masur is an associate professor of history at Northwestern. She is the author of “An Example for All the Land: Emancipation and the Struggle Over Equality in Washington, D.C.” This piece first appeared in the New York Times November 12.

In Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln,’ Passive Black Characters

By KATE MASUR

Evanston, Ill.

THE latest film by Steven Spielberg, “Lincoln,” which opens nationwide on Friday, has the makings of an Oscar shoo-in, particularly for Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance in the title role. The first scene is arresting: Two black soldiers speak with the president about their experiences in combat. One, a corporal, raises the problem of unequal promotions and pay in the Union Army. Two white soldiers join them, and the scene concludes as the corporal walks away, movingly reciting the final lines of the Gettysburg Address.

Unfortunately it is all downhill from there, at least as far as black characters are concerned. As a historian who watched the film on Saturday night in Chicago, I was not surprised to find that Mr. Spielberg took liberties with the historical record. As in “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan,” his purpose is more to entertain and inspire than to educate.

But it’s disappointing that in a movie devoted to explaining the abolition of slavery in the United States, African-American characters do almost nothing but passively wait for white men to liberate them. For some 30 years, historians have been demonstrating that slaves were crucial agents in their emancipation; however imperfectly, Ken Burns’s 1990 documentary “The Civil War” brought aspects of that interpretation to the American public. Yet Mr. Spielberg’s “Lincoln” gives us only faithful servants, patiently waiting for the day of Jubilee.

This is not mere nit-picking. Mr. Spielberg’s “Lincoln” helps perpetuate the notion that African Americans have offered little of substance to their own liberation. While the film largely avoids the noxious stereotypes of subservient African-Americans for which movies like “Gone With the Wind” have become notorious, it reinforces, even if inadvertently, the outdated assumption that white men are the primary movers of history and the main sources of social progress.

The nation’s capital was transformed by the migration of fugitive slaves from the South during the war, but you’d never know it from this film. By 1865 — Mr. Spielberg’s film takes place from January to April — these fugitives had transformed Washington’s streets, markets and neighborhoods. Had the filmmakers cared to portray African-Americans as meaningful actors in the drama of emancipation, they might have shown Lincoln interacting with black passers-by in the District of Columbia.

Black oral tradition held that Lincoln visited at least one of the capital’s government-run “contraband camps,” where many of the fugitives lived, and was moved by the singing and prayer he witnessed there. One of the president’s assistants, William O. Stoddard, remembered Lincoln stopping to shake hands with a black woman he encountered on the street near the White House.

In fact, the capital was also home to an organized and highly politicized community of free African-Americans, in which the White House servants Elizabeth Keckley and William Slade were leaders. Keckley, who published a memoir in 1868, organized other black women to raise money and donations of clothing and food for the fugitives who’d sought refuge in Washington. Slade was a leader in the Social, Civil and Statistical Association, a black organization that tried to advance arguments for freedom and civil rights by collecting data on black economic and social successes.

The film conveys none of this, opting instead for generic, archetypal characters. Keckley (played by Gloria Reuben) is frequently seen sitting with the first lady, Mary Todd Lincoln (played by Sally Field), in the balcony of the House of Representatives, silently serving as a moral beacon for any legislator who looks her way. Arguably her most significant scene is an awkward dialogue with Lincoln in which he says bluntly, “I don’t know you,” meaning not just her but all black people. Keckley replies, as a representative of her race, that she has no idea what her people will do once freed. As if one archetype were not enough, she adds that her son has died for the Union cause, making her grief the grief of all bereaved mothers.

Meanwhile, Slade (Stephen Henderson) is portrayed as an avuncular butler, a black servant out of central casting, who watches in prescient sorrow as his beloved boss departs for the theater on a fateful April evening.

It would not have been much of a stretch — particularly given other liberties taken by the filmmakers — to do things differently. Keckley and Slade might have been shown leaving the White House to attend their own meetings, for example. Keckley could have discussed with Mrs. Lincoln the relief work that, in reality, she organized and the first lady contributed to. Slade could have talked with Lincoln about the 13th Amendment. Indeed, his daughter later recalled that Lincoln had confided in Slade, particularly on the nights when he suffered from insomnia.

Even more unsettling is the brief cameo of Lydia Smith (played by S. Epatha Merkerson), housekeeper and supposed lover of the Pennsylvania congressman and Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones. Stevens’s relationship with his “mulatto” housekeeper is the subject of notoriously racist scenes in D. W. Griffith’s 1915 film “Birth of a Nation.” Though Mr. Spielberg’s film looks upon the pair with far more sympathy, the sudden revelation of their relationship — Stevens literally hands the official copy of the 13th Amendment to Smith, before the two head into bed together — reveals, once again, the film’s determination to see emancipation as a gift from white people to black people, not as a social transformation in which African-Americans themselves played a role.

The screenplay, written by Tony Kushner, is attentive to the language of the period and features verbal jousting among white men who take pleasure in jabs and insults. By contrast, the black characters — earnest and dignified — are given few interesting or humorous lines, even though verbal sparring and one-upmanship is a recognized aspect of black vernacular culture that has long shaped the American mainstream. Meanwhile, perhaps the greatest rhetorician of the 19th century, Frederick Douglass, who in fact attended the White House reception after Lincoln’s second inauguration in March 1865, is nowhere to be seen or heard.

It is a well-known pastime of historians to quibble with Hollywood over details. Here, however, the issue is not factual accuracy but interpretive choice. A stronger African-American presence, even at the margins of Mr. Spielberg’s “Lincoln,” would have suggested that another dynamic of emancipation was occurring just outside the frame — a world of black political debate, of civic engagement and of monumental effort for the liberation of body and spirit.

That, too, is the history of abolition; “Lincoln” is an opportunity squandered.