In the finale of season one, Barrett and Luna tackle the former president’s mugshot and the importance of challenging power. They reflect on the season, diving deeper into the Western understanding of morality in relation to philosopher Nietzsche’s idea of “the origin” of morality. Barrett also breaks down how the mistranslation Plato may have impaired America and Western civilization from creating “good” sustainable societies.

Recorded on 8/25/2023. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Watch the podcast video on our YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Simplecast.

Thanks for listening this season, and let us know your thoughts! What would you like to hear next season?

Leave a comment

The rulings are upsetting and show a bleak future, but Barrett says it's better for people to be informed rather than ignorant, coining this week's phrase, "Awareness is bliss."

Episode recorded on 7/7/2023. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Watch the podcast video on our YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcastsand Simplecast.

How do you find the bliss in being aware? Let us know below!

Leave a comment

Business as Usual

Juneteenth holds such a strange space in our collective zeitgeist today. The aftermath of George Floyd’s murder during the beginning of the pandemic injected new life into the now-Federal holiday, as corporations scrambled to try and strike the right tone with their Black customers and employees.

Three years later, the macroeconomic backdrop has shifted, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments were often among the first to go as Corporate America cut costs in anticipation of a recession. In many ways, save for some of us having the day off, we are back to business as usual.

And “business as usual”, in this country, is a loaded concept.

The spark of capitalism in this country and the Western world, was lit with the labor of our enslaved ancestors, and the ember has yielded spoils the world over for centuries now.

If you know me, then you know I’m proud AF to be Black, but the past three years have made me realize how exhausting it can be carrying around this burden all the time. I’ve harshly observed that no matter where I turn, no matter where I go, there is evidence of a centuries-long ethnocide against my people of the African diaspora. That’s on top of the genocide and ethnocide of the Indigenous people whose land was stolen.

I understand the object of the game that was commenced with the ruling class’s advent of race in the 17th century.

But I won’t fall into the trap of becoming “colorblind”, either.

Because while race may only be a mental construct, it carries with it very tangible implications. We must always remain conscious of the battles hard fought and won by our ancestors and their allies in this struggle for freedom over the past 400 years. Each generation stands on the shoulders of the ones that came before, and we must honor and acknowledge the fact that the many privileges we enjoy today are fruits of their unyielding effort.

A New Lens and a Way Out

At the Sustainable Culture Lab, we think it’s more beneficial to have these difficult conversations about America’s realities in terms of culture rather than race.

Culture, meaning, the things people in a particular place do to sustain themselves in perpetuity.

Through this lens, we can see that the predominant culture in America, as evidenced by our increasingly divided and unequal capitalistic society, is one of extraction and perpetual exploitation. It’s an ethnocidal culture.

It’s so much and so heavy that it is incumbent upon us all to learn the art of letting it all go — at least momentarily.

That weight off of your shoulders is freeing!

Find your peace and familiarize yourself with it — whatever that means for you. Return to it as often as you need!

It’s a necessity these days. We’re drowning in information and misinformation overload.

The poet Gil Scott-Heron famously coined the phrase, “The revolution will not be televised.”

The revolution in 2023 certainly won’t be televised, because many of us don’t even have cable anymore.

The revolution will not be live-streamed on Instagram or Twitch.

The revolution will not be tweeted in 164 characters (or is it 500 words now?) on Twitter.

The revolution will not be chopped up into 45-second addictive clips on TikTok.

No.

What Gil Scott-Heron meant then, and what still rings true now — is that the revolution will not be televised, because the revolution starts in the mind.

Be the change you wish to see. That’s the challenge we all are individually faced with for the benefit of the collective.

And I don’t mean that on no Gandhi, nor some “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”, shit neither.

What I mean is that freedom starts in the mind, which we have our own control over, and thus freedom itself is something that nobody can give to you in the first place.

When we have mental freedom, we no longer find ourselves auto-piloting towards endless scrolls down our timelines of choice.

When you have mental freedom, you define success for yourself.

When you have mental freedom, you define “enough” for yourself.

When we have mental freedom, we are no longer slaves to our conditioning.

Mental Clarity and Black Joy is Revolutionary

This mental conditioning is true today for Black folks and all “races” / ethnicities alike. This whole thing hasn’t been about race for a long time.

It’s always been about wealth and class and labor — keeping society divided in a way that fuels the GDP machine for private benefit.

Just check out the FBI file on Fred Hampton and his Rainbow Coalition. Why was that considered a threat to America?

We have so many reasons to walk around distracted and in fear, amplified 100x over in all kinds of media formats seeking to profit from our attention.

But what’s so beautiful to me is that Black people always find the love — it’s inherent to our culture. And love casts out fear, every time!

Our culture has always consisted of fighting to survive so that future generations could thrive. Our culture has always been about fighting for freedom.

When we tune out the noise and let love and light in — we realize how truly free we are to consciously create the conditions to experience peace, despite it all!

From Decoding Antiquated Text to *Real* American Culture

One of my favorite things about Juneteenth is that it represents a rare instance of America actually being inclusive with the word “we”.

When we see “We, the people…” as the start of the Constitution, we know who the authors are really referring to. The Three-Fifths Compromise tells us all we need to know about that.

And from there, redlining and gerrymandering, among other tactics, have continued to show us. The play has always been about property values, asymmetrical political influence, and financial exclusion.

The Federalist Society and other “originalist” interpreters of the Constitution continue to connect the dots in legal arenas across the country, using context from 236 years ago to effectively regress our society today.

But Juneteenth — the notion that the truth eventually does make its rounds, even despite the best efforts of those who want to hide it — that’s a true American holiday to me.

… “American” in the sense that brings me pride, anyway. An America that values the collective over the individual. That’s how Black folks have always had to get down, by necessity.

We band together to survive, and that’s real culture.

Cookout Etiquette and a Way Forward

Who can come to the cookout? I’m sorry, Clarence Thomas, but all skinfolk ain’t kinfolk, and you, sir, are the opps.

My white sister with the courage to address your racist aunties and uncles, please do pull up! (She might be the only one on time, but that’s a convo for another day…)

But seriously, though — you see where I’m going with this?

I’m no longer with the division. I’m about solutions.

This Juneteenth, let’s commit to telling the truth — to ourselves and to each other and to anyone who’ll listen. My truth, your truth, our truth.

Even when — especially when — it’s uncomfortable.

Just like after the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the very first Juneteenth 2.5 years later in Galveston, TX, we are once again in a time of Reconstruction. Today, as then, progress on a national level will require collective awareness and courage.

So, let’s celebrate freedom and rest up this weekend — then let’s get back into the fight.

Remember, the change starts with you. So be the light!

Happy Juneteenth, yall!

-Sam

Episode recorded on 6/9/2023. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Watch the podcast video on our YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcastsand Simplecast.

Where do you see Eǔtopia in your daily life? Let us know below.

Leave a comment

The story of Curt Flood exemplifies the exploitative nature of American sports that extends beyond baseball. For example: In the NFL, players fail to get necessary long-term care from a league that asks them to “get in multiple car accidents every sunday.” In the NBA, players come out of college (and before recently, some skipped college altogether) to pursue their dreams in the league. In the MLB, minor league players just last year won the ability to unionize and join the MLB Players Association.

These are obviously flawed systems that can harm the very athletes that these sports depend on, so what does a better sports culture look like in America? It starts with the development of players, limiting the greed of owners, and changing the way we as an audience consume sports.

As I mentioned in the Curt Flood piece, soccer in Europe takes a very different approach to league construction. Take the English Premier League for example, similar to other major leagues, soccer clubs have development programs in which they’ll develop younger players, pay them and also educate them, and when they’re ready to play for the professional team, they’ll get called up. This system promotes the well-being of the players as well as promoting a healthy dynamic between the players and the team. 

The English soccer system also operates differently from the fixed-league setup we have here in America. In Europe, leagues are set up in a hierarchical order, with the Premier League being the top league in England. Should a team fall into the bottom of the standings in their league in a given year, they are relegated to the league below. Should a team win their league, they advance to the league above theirs, and so on. This setup goes all the way down to recreational leagues – quite literally anyone can create a team and theoretically work their way up. 

This system of relegation and promotion also makes for interesting dynamics between teams and fans. A team that might be new to the Premier League might not have the most sophisticated stadium or the most loyal fan base, but they play some of the most storied teams in England. This setup also means that teams are not decided based on geographic location like in America, where each major city has either one or a small number of teams in each sport, but on the quality of each team regardless of location. There are no concerns about big markets vs. small markets, and it is normal for a big market such as London to have many teams. London alone had seven EPL teams in the 2022-23 season out of 20 teams. For example, if American sports worked similarly, New York City would not have just the New York Knicks and Brooklyn Nets in the NBA, but would probably have a top professional team in each borough, and some boroughs might have multiple teams.

Sports fandom is in a lot of ways different in the U.K. in relation to soccer than it is in the United States. Fans are more likely to pick a team based on the culture of the team and instead of the team being from the city they grew up in, the team represents the neighborhood and community that they grew up in. This creates a closeness that American sports often lack. This influences how fans consume and discuss sports – something that is incredibly fractured in America. 

Curt Flood, and athletes like him, stood up to the public perception of athletes to ensure that they were treated as human beings and not as a cog within a corporate sports machine. The structure of European sports puts a higher value on the humanity of the athlete, which forges a stronger connection between fans and their team.  

Let’s face it: American sports teams are run by billionaire owners who largely will pinch pennies at any chance they get. Owners are consistently outed for racist remarks towards their players or fans. Evan fans of American sports view players as property, those who are uneducated on societal issues whose life purpose is to play a sport for others to watch.

It’s no secret that American sports is one word: Dehumanizing. 

We know that our sports are dehumanizing, but we struggle to imagine another way to organize sports, so we sadly just accept and believe that dehumanization is inevitable. This needs to change.

Television commentators tell our brightest stars to “shut up and dribble,” while a sitting Vice President will use taxpayer funds to travel to an NFL game, only to leave when players kneel for the national anthem in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. 

American teams, similar to European teams, rely on owners or ownership groups to handle financing the team. In America, however, teams are (with the exception of the MLB) working within a league-mandated salary cap. In the NBA, teams can go over the salary cap, but must pay an increasing “luxury tax.” 

What would a revolutionized American sports culture look like? These four things would help us get there:

Creation of youth academies. The creation of academies in European soccer clubs was able to bring top talent at a young age to professional clubs. What would this look like in America? Let’s use an example that relates to the modern NBA. Take Steph Curry for example - a North Carolina native and Davidson College alum. If NBA teams had development academies, Steph could agree to train at his hometown Charlotte Hornets’ academy after school, learning from former Hornets players, including his father, Dell Curry and other Hornets legends such as Muggsy Bogues. The benefit of this structure is obvious for both parties. Steph would get world-class training from players he idolizes as a young fan of his hometown team, and the team would develop this player to eventually be a star for their team without having to worry about losing him for the draft. Fan involvement would also be greater – who doesn’t love the story of a hometown kid who was brought up through his hometown academy and is now a star?

Alteration of league structures. In the American system, players will usually play college sports to then be drafted by teams. Minor leagues (aside from baseball) aren’t really a thing – as mentioned previously, development isn’t emphasized. But what if the NBA followed the EPL system? If the Charlotte Hornets placed last in the league, what if they were relegated instead of awarded a chance at a top pick? The implementation of academies would also eliminate the need for a draft that sends the best prospects to the worst teams. The threat of relegation and the potential to get promoted to the NBA would make teams value player development even more.

Elimination of strict salary cap-based leagues. Salary cap leagues incentivize commodifying players more than necessary. While players have transfer fees in soccer leagues across the world, teams in salary cap leagues compare the value of players against one another. This incentivizes low-balling players, trading or cutting them if they don’t perform to standards, and just in general treating players as commodities. 

More responsibility for success on team owners. In modern sports, owners often receive the praise if their team performs well yet none of the blame should their team underperform (the Master-Slave Dialectic at work). This perception leads to hateful comments towards players by fans and a dynamic within sports teams that the players are there to serve (primarily white) owners. In order for sports to have a healthier place in society, this dynamic must change into a more equitable system. 

These changes are not overnight fixes, but they all follow a principle of trying to be better about our country’s relationship with sports and how we invest in and develop athletes. 

If we’re too busy believing that we’re already the best in the world, we’ll never get better.

In this episode, Barrett and Luna dive into why America is so lonely, inspired by the publication of the surgeon general's advice for becoming less lonely in The New York Times. America's individualistic society promotes moving through life alone. Barrett and Luna say the solution is as simple as saying "hi" to your neighbors and changing the language you use when you speak with people.

Episode recorded on 5/19/2023. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Watch the podcast video on our YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcastsand Simplecast.

Let us know how you’re reconstructing destructive phrases in your life. How do you make the language you use more sustainable?

Leave a comment

In Episode 8, Barrett and Luna discuss what it means to be sustainable and nurturing as a parent. It starts with having a philosophy to do good things. Barrett gets into this idea by discussing his young son’s newfound obsession with cheese. Yes, you read that right. Barrett also reframes the idea that having a child is a burden on the parent. Instead, he says parenting is a collaboration with children, not a right to exercise power or control over them. 

Episode recorded on 5/12/2023. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Watch the podcast video on our YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Simplecast.

Where do you see ethnocide and Eǔtopia in the world? Let us know.

Leave a comment

In this newsletter, I wanted to take a deep dive into how American sports, especially compared to European soccer leagues, uphold the master-slave dialectic. 

The master-slave dialectic refers to a concept created by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the 1800s that describes the relationship, or dialectic, between a master and a slave. This idea can be especially important for understanding relationships in the United States because our history of chattel slavery has entrenched this dialectic into our society.

In the master-slave dialectic, the master has all of the power and the slave has none. Therefore, the master will use his power to only claim responsibility for the things that benefit himself and enrich his power. Similarly, anything that could weaken him will become the fault of the slave. For example, if the slave’s labor generates a lot of money, the master will claim that he is brilliant at business, but if the slave’s labor does not make much money then the slave is lazy.

The master-slave dialectic still shows up in American society, including in professional and amateur sports. For example: antitrust protections for players weren't passed federally until the late 20th century which means that until recently players had very few protections against being exploited by team owners. The lack of antitrust protections meant that players were effectively “owned” by their franchises, and were forced to be traded and take low salaries at the owners’ wishes. 

In European soccer, player development and desires are much more at the forefront of sports organizations. Let’s say that a large club like Real Madrid has a promising young player that will turn into a superstar – however, the player is too young and his skills are too raw to get him playing time on the starting squad. Madrid could then loan that player out to a smaller team anywhere in the world. The player would get increased playing time, the smaller team would gain fans and perform better in the standings, and Madrid would save money on the player’s wages. Also, the player must approve of the loan and cannot get sent to a team against his will. Seems like a win for everyone all around, right?

However, American sports don't operate this way. Teams and fans are much more hostile towards other teams, and treat players as property that cost a salary and who could be traded or cut should they not live up to lofty expectations. We see this in contract negotiations, free agency, and the trade market. The American process is much more focused on the will of the owners, while the European process looks more to the interests of the players.

Prior to the 1969 Major League Baseball season, St. Louis Cardinals star Curt Flood, who is African American, decided to challenge the norm and hold out in search of a $90,000 contract, which is equivalent to $740,000 today. Flood was a superstar in the MLB – at the time of his trade request, he was a multi-time all-star, World Series winner, and gold glove recipient, which goes to the best defensive player at his position.

During the 1969 season, Flood’s decision to hold out for more money angered management and they looked for justifications to label him as a troublemaker to reduce his market value. As the season came to an end, Flood was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies for All-Star infielder Dick Allen and other players. Flood declined to play for the Phillies, citing the racist fanbase and his wishes to be autonomous in his career decisions, calling Philadelphia the “northernmost Southern city.” 

The Phillies offered to increase Flood’s pay to $100,000, but Flood declined: “I do not feel that I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes.”

During Flood’s trade request, the MLB still had a rule called the reserve clause, which stated that “the rights to players were retained by the team upon [a] contract's expiration.” This was put into place because players would jump from team to team, oftentimes during the season, and the league wanted to give teams the ability to retain their star players. The clause was originally meant to only be used on five players at a time per team, but owners bent the rules so that they could decide the contracts for all of their players, regardless of player performance. 

MLB was able to do this because of an exemption from the 1922 Sherman Antitrust Act – in which Flood, in consultation with MLB Players Association head Marvin Miller, sued the league over their exemption. The MLB was declared a unique exception to the act, making it exempt from laws that advocated for everyday workers and not professional athletes. Flood, with the support and financing of the Players Association, sued the league over their use of the reserve clause. 

In 1972, his case Flood v. Kuhn made it all the way to the Supreme Court, but Flood lost the case 5-3. In their decision, the court argued that Major League Baseball was not subject to federal antitrust laws because of the “uniqueness” of baseball’s status, citing previous cases that upheld the reserve clause that Flood was challenging.

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the only African American on the court, dissented against the decision and equated the reserve clause to “involuntary servitude.”  

Four years later, Major League Baseball got rid of the reserve clause in 1976, after a lockout took place because the MLB Players Association went on strike to fight the reserve clause and other rules that denied rights to players – shortly after, other major American sports leagues eventually followed suit. However, it wasn't until the Curt Flood Act of 1998, signed by President Clinton, that MLB players were explicitly protected under federal antitrust laws.

After refusing the trade to the Phillies in 1969, Flood sat out the entirety of the 1970 season. Throughout that year he received constant hate mail and death threats. Before the 1971 season, Flood was traded to the Washington Senators, but left the team after only 13 games. He had a rocky start with the Senators, which was largely due to the rustiness of not having played the previous season while being constantly inundated with hate mail.

After leaving the Senators, Flood never again played in the MLB and retired at the age of 32. Prior to standing up for his rights, Flood was on the way to a Hall of Fame career, but despite positively impacting the lives of all MLB players, he is yet to make it to Cooperstown. 

Flood’s life is an example of the master-slave dialectic in American sports because players have to fight, and oftentimes go on strike, to see themselves get fairly compensated for the work that they do. Despite being the best in the world, American professional athletes are still seen as a product that is to be bought and sold by team owners and subject to ridicule by the fans instead of as human beings who should be valued and protected. 

As Flood said in response to his case, Flood v. Kuhn, “a well-paid slave is still nonetheless a slave.”

Barrett and Luna take a break from discussing how bad things happen and instead focus on what it means to be good and make good in the world in today’s episode. An objective good, Barrett says, is something sustainable and nurturing, like a good friend or healthy food. They unpack what good means in the workplace, and Luna introduces a new segment, "Reconstruct the Phrase," where Barrett restructures common phrases to emphasize the possibilities for good instead of focusing on the bad. 

Episode recorded on 4/28/2023. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Next time, Barrett and Luna will continue focusing on the good and unpack how Barrett constructed Eǔtopia, the word for a sustainable good place.

Check out our video podcast episodes on our YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Simplecast.

We want to hear from you. Where do you see ethnocide and Eǔtopia in the world?

Leave a comment

In this episode, Barrett and Luna unpack how ethnocide and the delusions of American freedom encourage senseless gun violence, like the shootings that put Ralph Yarl in the hospital and killed Kaylin Gillis. The answer, Barrett says, is to protect existence, or human life, instead of delusions bred from the ethnocidal history of this country.

“Thanks for listening, and I will say these topics are not the most uplifting. But the the uplifting component is that there is a way to rectify the problem, which is as simple as caring about existence more than delusions. Once you can do that, then incredible things can happen.” - Barrett

Episode recorded on 4/21/2023. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Check out our video podcast episodes on our YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Simplecast.

We want to know your thoughts. What do you want us to talk about next? Where do you see ethnocide and Eǔtopia in the world?

Leave a comment

Tennessee is the backdrop for this episode as Barrett and Luna talk about the horrific shooting at Covenant School in Nashville and the baseless dismissal of two Black lawmakers by state conservatives after they protested the violence. They unpack the warped understanding of freedom in America that has allowed for this violence to keep happening.

Since the recording of the podcast, both Rep. Justin J. Pearson of Memphis and Rep. Justin Jones of Nashville have been reinstated to the Tennessee House.

Episode recorded on 4/7/2023. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Watch more of our podcast episodes on our YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Simplecast.

We want to hear from you. What do you want featured on the next podcast episode? Where do you see ethnocide and Eǔtopia in the world?

Leave a comment

Episode 4 is all about "the commons," or communal public space. Barrett and Luna discuss how the idea of “the tragedy of the commons” came to be in ethnocidal America. Now, Barrett says it is important to build these spaces again because “common space is culture.”

Episode recorded on 3/30/23. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Check out our podcast episodes on our YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Simplecast.

We want to know your thoughts. What do you want to hear on the next podcast episode? Where do you see ethnocide and Eǔtopia in the world around us?

Leave a comment

Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project, sought to tell the true story of America’s founding – a story that centers around the year enslaved people were first brought to the colonies in 1619, and it has been met with intense attacks from American conservatives and the Republican party since its inception.

In 2019, four hundred years after enslaved people first arrived in the American colonies, the New York Times launched the 1619 Project as a series of stories by writers, scholars, and poets that emphasize the ways in which America’s founding and early American institutions of slavery still continue to harm Black Americans today. The initiative was wildly successful, earning Hannah-Jones a Pulitzer prize in 2021. Later that year the project was re-released as a book and quickly shot to the top of The New York Times’ best sellers list. 

Unsurprisingly, in response to the success of the 1619 Project conservative politicians such as Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Glenn Youngkin have campaigned on a platform that emphasizes teaching a revisionist history in our schools that erases the true story of American history that includes the lived experiences of people of color. 

As the national conversation rages regarding critical race theory and the 1619 Project, conservative leaders have consistently fought against an education for our nation’s students that helps them understand that America was built by enslaved persons. This is ethnocide: the active erasure of a people’s history and culture.

In 2020, the 1776 Commission was created to justify conservative revisionist history and serve as a direct rebuke of Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project. It is a perfect example of using language to uphold ethnocide and redirect the national conversation to one of patriotism and national pride. The Commission was made up of various conservative scholars, former politicians, and professors aiming to implement a “patriotic education.”

On January 18, 2021, the commission released the 1776 Report, intending to establish a guideline for how the administration envisioned public school curriculum. After reading through the commission report, I found a lot of the language to be an explicit acceptance or diversion from confronting ethnocide in America. 

Three examples from the text highlight the types of arguments that conservatives and opponents of critical race theory use when arguing for a more limited school curriculum.

“Many Americans labor under the illusion that slavery was somehow a uniquely American evil. It was the Western world’s repudiation of slavery, only just beginning to build at the time of the American Revolution, which marked a dramatic sea change in moral sensibilities” (pg. 10).

In this section, the report contends that slavery is the “most common charge leveled against our founders.” Aside from the issue that slavery is brought up in the most casual, nonchalant way possible, the authors intend to shift the blame of slavery to whoever started the concept of slavery (the Eastern world is implied in the text). 

By setting the premise that America should not be held accountable for slavery but instead should be commended for the Western world’s “repudiation” of slavery, the 1776 report makes the argument that Americans fundamentally should not acknowledge the harms that American slavery put upon enslaved persons. The goal of this argument is to reject the premise that there is even a conversation to begin with; but how can America claim this “repudiation” when the founding documents embedded slavery into the fabric of this new nation?

SCL The Word is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Additionally, the report also argues that white Americans or western civilization served as the primary impetus for ending slavery in the United States instead of the actions of the enslaved who fought against their enslavement since the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade.

Not only will Trump and his supporters deny the legitimacy of arguments surrounding the traumatic events of American slavery and civil rights violations, they will articulate a concept of patriotism, national identity, freedom, and a limiting concept of love that erases the impact and legacy of slavery from the narrative.

“The primary duty of schools is to teach students the basic skills needed to function in society, such as reading, writing, and mathematics… our founders also recognized a second and essential task: educators must convey a sense of enlightened patriotism that equips each generation with a knowledge of America’s founding principles, a deep reverence for their liberties, and a profound love of their country” (pg. 17).

The concept of love expressed in the commission report is not about love, but rather a form of submission. By arguing that a “profound love of country” means that one should not voice their concerns with American issues, it deters the public from challenging societal authority figures. This is the opposite of what a true love for one’s country should mean: fighting for what’s right and including everyone in that conversation.

Lastly, opponents of the 1619 Project argue that there is systemic oppression, but that the oppression is against white Americans and not persons of color. They argue that the continuous conversation about civil rights stemming from the civil rights movement of the 1960s results in systemic oppression against those in power, which are presumably white Americans. This perspective is used to justify their objections to affirmative action and other initiatives that promote racial equality.

“But the heady spirit of the original Civil Rights Movement, whose leaders forcefully quoted the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the rhetoric of the founders and of Lincoln, proved to be short-lived. The Civil Rights Movement was almost immediately turned to programs that ran counter to the lofty ideals of the founders… The justification for reversing the promise of color-blind civil rights was that past discrimination requires present effort, or affirmative action in the form of preferential treatment, to overcome long-accrued inequalities. Those forms of preferential treatment built up in our system over time, first in administrative rulings, then executive orders, later in congressionally passed law, and finally were sanctified by the Supreme Court” (pg. 15).

By arguing that affirmative action is “preferential treatment” and will inevitably lead to the systemic oppression of “those in power,” the 1776 Report is attempting to say the quiet part out loud: affirmative action will create a slippery slope that ends with white people somehow at the bottom. This is the epitome of the master-slave dialectic, where the master has “all the authority, yet none of the responsibility.” 

The master-slave dialectic was created by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel to describe the type of dialectic or relationship that can exist between two unequal parties. Essentially, since the “master” has all of the power, he does not want to be responsible for actions that could reduce his power, so he will make the “slave” responsible for all failures. But since he wants to grow his power, he will take ownership of all successes, both his and the slave’s. The master aspires to have all of the power and none of the responsibility, and he wants the slave to have none of the power and all of the responsibility. 

Barrett Holmes Pitner uses this theory in The Crime Without a Name: Ethnocide and the Erasure of Culture in America to describe the racial divisions within American society starting with the transatlantic slave trade to the present. 

Since ethnocidal chattel slavery was a foundational aspect of American society, and many of our founding era leaders owned enslaved people, the master-slave dialectic has become a normal feature of American discourse and life. It should surprise no one that conservatives are using this dialectic to denounce the 1619 Project and spread “patriotic” propaganda. 

Trump’s 1776 Commission seeks to define what a “patriotic education” is and control what is deemed acceptable for students to learn in schools, as well as deny students the right to learn about the history of slavery in the United States. By shifting the responsibility of slavery to “other western nations,” the American right seeks to benefit off the work of the enslaved who built this country, while also declining to take any moral responsibility for the institution of slavery, controlling what is and is not acceptable to discuss. It is an agenda focused on power at the expense of truth. The 1776 Commission's clear goal is to absolve America from the responsibility of slavery while ensuring that white America remains the dominant force in society. This is the master-slave dialectic at its core, and Republicans are using it to shape their agenda at all levels of government.

For America to become an equitable and just society, we must break free from the master-slave dialectic that has been the norm since our nation’s inception.

The German verb aufheben can provide a way to break out of the master-slave dialectic because it describes the potential of an equitable relationship. Aufheben has been translated by German scholars to mean (among other things) abolish. The Crime Without A Name argues that it can also be translated as to “preserve” or “transcend.” At first, these definitions are hard to combine: how can something be abolished while also being preserved? Well, aufheben states that an equitable conversation does all three. Certain aspects of both sides get abolished, and certain aspects get preserved because the goal is to use the best parts of either side to transcend their limitations and create something new.

The 1776 Report is a continuation of an oppressive discourse, dating back to our nation’s founding. The 1619 report attempts to have an equitable discourse by making Americans more aware of America’s roots of racial oppression and division. 

Being responsible for our collective history is not a form of oppression, in fact it is an expression of freedom and a prerequisite for a truly patriotic society.

SCL The Word is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Last fall, I wanted to examine the connection between the destruction of the environment and the destruction of culture for a class podcast assignment at The George Washington University.

I had taken a class with Barrett, or Professor Pitner, a little over a year before this assignment and remembered discussing ecocide, or the severe and widespread destruction of the environment. Shortly after the class finished, I received an email about his book, “The Crime Without a Name: Ethnocide and the Erasure of Culture.” I think he had briefly mentioned ethnocide in class, and I was interested in learning more about the part ecocide can play in ethnocide.

I worked with a small group to find people to share, in real terms, how dangerous human-driven environmental destruction can be in relation to culture. We focused on the Chesapeake Bay region to provide a local example and focused on the Piscataway people, the first caretakers of the waterways in the area.

We created “(In)vironmental Justice,” the podcast taking a look (in)side the effects of climate change. Our episode about the destruction of the earth and culture was recently published on Planet Forward, a sustainability reporting outlet. Check it out here.

Anjela Barnes, who was the vice president of the Accokeek Foundation at the time of production, gives her perspective as a Piscataway woman in the episode. She talks about the ways her culture has been and will continue to be destroyed because of the pollution and destruction of the environment.

“I’ll just keep pointing back to colonization — at that point in [the] 1600s when Captain John Smith was exploring the Chesapeake region and kind of discovered these lands, that is where things changed from a relational perspective of people and plants and animals and the land and water to a commodity,” she says in the episode.

My group mates and I also talked to Barrett to get a better understanding of what the destruction of culture while keeping the people looks like and how we can combat it.

“So there’s a clear track record that if you normalize the destruction of a people’s culture, which clearly is going to then connect to the destruction of the environment because your culture comes from the environment — if you destroy all that stuff, you’re going to destroy everything,” Barrett says in the episode.

The episode also features perspectives from Stop Ecocide International and the Potomac Riverkeeper Network.

The solutions we discovered through producing the episode are to stop destroying the environment and to build a world where we create and celebrate culture.

“It’s not just native peoples — it’s humans,” Anjela says in the episode. “We’re all a part of nature, biologically speaking, and the care and the giving back is very much a part of our culture. We use the word stewards as caretakers of the land and the waters because it is providing and caring for us.”

The warning rings very clear at the end of the episode. If we don’t change things, the Chesapeake Bay will no longer exist and that will have a detrimental effect on the cultures that rely on it.

“(In)vironmental Justice” is hosted by Jing-Ning Hsu and Adam Esrig. Alejandra Puente also contributed to the production of the podcast.

It was written, produced and edited by Hannah Loder.

The legal walls appear to be closing in on Donald Trump. Who knows if his legal troubles have finally caught up to him, but based on his ramblings on Truth Social, it looks like he’s starting to feel the pressure.

Last week on social media, Trump claimed that he could be arrested as early as today, March 21st. However, there are also rumors that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office may still interview a couple more people regarding their case concerning Trump’s potentially illegal hush money payment to pornstar Stormy Daniels. His possible arrest may be a week or more away, but regardless of when or if it arrives, reports have come out saying that the FBI, Secret Service, and other law enforcement agencies are preparing for an arrest.

The screw is turning on Trump, and as the squeeze gets tighter and tighter it will become harder to predict the desperate acts he might engage in to avoid arrest. 

Thus far his actions have been entirely predictable. He has raged on social media, declared the investigation as partisan attacks, and has encouraged his supporters to protest and riot on his behalf. The United States has already traversed this terrain on January 6, so while his actions might be frightening and deplorable, they aren’t surprising.

Likewise, the Republican Party’s defense of Trump, lambasting of the investigation, and argument that Trump should not be arrested because it would only further sow division are also predictable and unsurprising.

Thus far, Trump’s and the GOP’s responses to his potential arrest have not veered from the script they have cultivated over the last seven years, but I think Trump may have another surprise up his sleeve.

I think he might attempt to flee the country.

SCL The Word is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Ways to Avoid Prison

By all accounts, Trump is terrified of going to jail. In addition to the indignity of getting fingerprinted, taking a mugshot, and wearing a prison jumpsuit; he’s also a pampered germaphobe. 

During his presidency, he allegedly called the White House a dump and complained about how small it was. A prison cell would likely be unimaginable to Trump if he could hardly tolerate the White House. Additionally, his fear of germs is well known, and he refrains from shaking hands and other forms of casual, appropriate human contact for fear of contracting an illness.

Yet more fundamentally than his phobias and pampered lifestyle, Trump does not want to go to jail because it will make him look like a loser. He attempted a coup d’etat after losing the presidency because he did not want to be considered a loser, so the lengths he would take to avoid prison could be gargantuan. Going to prison, in his eyes, would make him the ultimate loser, and that is surely unfathomable to him. He will attempt to avoid jail at all costs, so fleeing the country should be considered within the realm of possibility.

Once we acknowledge that attempting to flee may be something Trump might try, we then need to think about how he might be able to attempt this absurd and globally significant endeavor. Tragically, the answer to this question is pretty simple: he will try to fly away aboard his private plane.

Trump’s private plane, which he calls “Trump Force One,” is a Boeing 757 that can fly over 4,400 miles on one fuel tank. A direct flight from New York City to St. Petersburg, Russia is only 4,200 miles.

Additionally, in anticipation of his 2024 presidential run, the plane has received numerous upgrades because he uses it to fly around the country for his rallies. Not only does Trump have a means to escape and a place he could escape to, but he has updated his plane and readily uses it.

Trump boarding “Trump Force One” would not raise much suspicion because he does it all the time. Americans could watch him board his plane and wholeheartedly believe that he was flying to a rally somewhere in the midwest, only to soon thereafter get a news alert that his plane never arrived at its anticipated destination and that he is believed to be flying somewhere over the Atlantic and heading to an unknown destination.

The next big question we must ask pertains to his accomplices. Someone would need to fly the plane. Someone would need to separate Trump from the law enforcement officials who might stand in his way as he makes his escape. We have to wonder if there are people so committed to Trump that they would be willing to live in absentia along with him. Once he and anyone else with him leave the country, they may not be able to come back.

Under normal circumstances, one would assume that Trump would struggle to find these accomplices, but as the January 6th insurrection has shown, it is a fool’s errand to underestimate the chaotic lengths that some Americans will go to in order to defend Trump. Many of his January 6th supporters are already serving jail time, and while some may now regret their decision others may not. When you have supporters who are willing to go to jail on your behalf, then those same supporters may gleefully choose to live in absentia too.

Not only did Trump have a mob of supporters attack the U.S. Capitol, but he also had multiple sympathizers within the government and the Secret Service. Trump even believed that his supporters within the Secret Service would escort him to the U.S. Capitol so that he could be alongside his mob as they stormed the building. When the Secret Service agents changed plans at the last minute and brought him back to the White House, Trump flew into a fit of rage.

Who’s to say Trump does not have a close-knit group of 5 to 10 supporters within law enforcement who feel that not going to the U.S. Capitol and going back to the White House was a mistake? I would not be surprised if these Trump supporters are more than happy to rectify the “mistakes” of January 6th by helping Trump flee the country.

Since Trump already has both a plane and an accessible destination, he does not need an army to help him flee the country. A small group of diehard supporters may be all he would need.

To help sustain and grow The Word with Barrett Holmes Pitner we have introduced a subscription option to the newsletter. Subscribers will allow us to continue producing The Word, and create exciting new content including podcasts and new newsletters. 

Subscriptions start at $5 a month, and if you would like to give more you can sign up as a Founding Member and name your price.We really enjoy bringing you The Word each week and we thank you for supporting our work.

Subscribe now

The Muscovite President

If Trump succeeded in escaping the United States and landed in Russia, it would set off an international firestorm of epic proportions. Russia is at war with Ukraine and the United States is arguably Ukraine’s biggest ally, yet America’s support for Ukraine falls along a party divide. President Joe Biden and the Democrats are vocal supporters of Ukraine, but the Republican Party consists of many pro-Russia politicians and congress members who question the importance of America’s involvement in the war.

Trump being so overtly pro-Russia that he fled there for safe haven to avoid imprisonment would radically change the dynamics of a war that is growing in geopolitical significance with each passing day.

Additionally, if Trump landed in Russia, he would not stop running for the presidency. There is no rule stating that presidential candidates need to be physically in the United States to run for president. 

The only requirements to run for the presidency are being a natural born citizen, being over the age of 35, and having been a resident of the United States for fourteen years. I suspect that Trump’s opposition will invoke the residency requirement to make Trump ineligible, but who’s to say it would succeed in this unprecedented situation. 

From Russia, Trump could campaign for the presidency and invoke the false sense of victimization that many of his supporters feel. He would illegitimately proclaim that this “attack” upon him is the same type of “attack” that the liberals and “woke” Americans will inflict upon his supporters. He would tell them that unless they fight back that they will lose their country, and he would use the example of himself being in Russia as proof that America could be taken away from his supporters (a majority of which are white Americans without a college degree).

From absentia, he could launch a campaign of fear and violence that echoes the rhetoric of Confederate leaders who believed that violence and terror were the only means of preventing the South from getting taken away from them. 

Yet, in Trump’s case, we would be dealing with a national and international crisis over the fate of the presidency and the control of the entire United States, and not merely the control of a section of the United States.

Also, he would proclaim that the only way to save America or “Make America Great Again,” would be for him to be re-elected as president and return to the United States as a hero returning from exile. 

Living in absentia might keep him out of jail and give him the chance to be a “winner” if he wins the 2024 presidential election. And even if he lost the election, he’d probably prefer to live amongst Vladimir Putin’s cabal of oligarchs in Russia which also includes former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.

The specter of a Trump indictment and arrest in the near future has probably made a lot of Americans believe that Trump’s dystopian existence might have hit the end of the road, but we need to remain aware that Trump has always been willing to go to previously unimaginable lengths to get his way. 

If we are not careful, the road Trump might lead us down could be darker and far more terrifying than most Americans could imagine.

My book THE CRIME WITHOUT A NAME was released on October 12, 2021, and NPR has picked it as one of the top books of the year!

You can order the book—including the audiobook—and watch recordings of my book tour discussions at Eaton and the New York Public Library at thecrimewithoutaname.com

Barrett and Luna discuss language as a collaborative and fluid process. Barrett talks about how he cultivated the language to articulate his ideas about society from a cultural perspective instead of a racial one.

“We’re in the upside down. So now you have to have language that articulates that the upside down isn’t right side up.” - Barrett

Episode recorded on 3/3/23. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Watch our podcast episodes on our YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Simplecast.

We want to hear from you. What do you want to hear Barrett and Luna discuss next? Where do you see ethnocide in our world?

Leave a comment

This week I was interviewed by the show “Think” on NPR affiliate KERA from Dallas/Fort Worth, TX about my book “The Crime Without a Name: Ethnocide and the Erasure of Culture in America,” the impact of ethnocide in America, both in the past and present, and how we can cultivate a better future.

The interview lasted about an hour, and I had a great time speaking with them. I hope all of you enjoy the conversation too.

Here’s the link to the episode: https://think.kera.org/2023/03/15/does-being-an-american-kill-your-ancestral-culture/.

And lastly, today is my birthday, so it is great being able to share this birthday present with all of you.

-Barrett

Barrett and Lewis center their philosophical discussion around breath and language. Through the episode, they work to humanize language and uplift Black consciousness.

Lewis Gordon is a professor, philosopher, musician, the author of the 2022 book “Fear of Black Consciousness,” and the head of the philosophy department at the University of Connecticut.

Produced by Hannah Loder.

Check out the video version of the podcast on our YouTube channel and subscribe today to never miss an episode. You can also listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Simplecast.

What did you think of this special episode? Who else do you want to hear from? Let us know by leaving a comment.

Leave a comment

Barrett and Luna focus their conversation on the recent train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, the 5-acre fire in Kissimmee, Florida, and the recent mass shooting at Michigan State University. These events expose the pervasiveness of ethnocide in industrial society and emphasize the importance of creating a sustainable good place, or what Barrett calls Eǔtopia (ev-topia).

Episode recorded on 2/17/23. Produced by Hannah Loder.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch our podcast episodes, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Simplecast.

We’d love to hear from you about what you want us to discuss on the podcast. Leave a comment and tell us your ideas. How can we use the framework of ethnocide to understand the world around us?

Leave a comment

When Splash Mountain opened in 1992 it was also met with pushback and for three decades it weathered the storm, but all of that changed in 2020. In the wake of the brutal killing of George Floyd and the protests that engulfed the nation, the controversy over Splash Mountain reemerged. In response, Disney decided to make the change to follow the wishes of their park guests for a more accepting park environment.

The 2020 announcement to close the ride was met with strong objections from fans who grew up riding the attraction:

“Splash Mountain has never included depictions of slaves or any racist elements and is based solely on historical African folktales that families of all ethnicities have been enjoying for nearly a century… It is absurd to pander to a small group of ‘Disney haters’ that don't understand the story, and re-theme such a nostalgic ride," a petitioner posted on Change.org.

Subscribe now

On Splash Mountain, the rider follows the story of Br’er Rabbit and his decision to leave the Briar Patch, where he lives. After running away from home in hopes of a better future, he encounters Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear, who are keen on capturing him. The ride takes the audience through a series of scenes which culminates in the Fox and Bear catching Br’er Rabbit, but the rabbit tricks the fox into throwing him back into the Briar patch (The descent into the Briar Patch is symbolized by the large drop on the ride). 

Br’er Rabbit can fool Br’ers Fox and Bear into throwing him into the Briar Patch because it is an inhospitable place filled with thorns and prickly briars, but also the place where he was born and grew up. Br’er Rabbit can survive the Briar Patch because he is already accustomed to the environment.

The story seems fairly harmless at first, but when necessary context is applied, Splash Mountain is a case of propping up ethnocide to preserve oppressive traditions. 

The classic trickster tale of the hare and the fox were popularized in America by folklorist Joel Chandler Harris, but the stories originated in Africa, told by slaves that were brought to America. Living in Reconstruction-era Atlanta, Harris worked on a plantation, often interacting with formerly enslaved people, and hearing various tales about the hare and the fox. There is a clear message throughout the tales: the hare, who represented an escaped enslaved person, would use quick-wit and intelligence to outsmart the fox, who represented white Southerners trying to catch the enslaved persons. 

The Bear, as the dim-witted sidekick frequently gets caught in the fox’s traps. Br’er Bear represents poorer whites who worked for wealthy land-owners, but probably were not wealthy enough to own slaves. This group supported slavery in the hopes that one day they would gain the power that landowners held, further distancing themselves from enslaved people. But their lack of wealth also meant that they could fall into the traps created by wealthy white Americans.

Harris’ first book was released in 1880 under the title Uncle Remus: His Songs and His Sayings. The story followed a fictional Uncle Remus telling tales about characters Br’er Rabbit, Br’er Fox and various other creatures (Br’er being an abbreviation for brother). The publications were written using heavy broken English and African-American Vernacular English, and historians have debated over Harris’ choice to write the stories “exactly how he heard them.” Harris stated that he wanted to “preserve in permanent shape those curious mementoes of a period that will no doubt be sadly misrepresented by historians of the future.”

Disney’s film Song of the South follows closely some of the stories told in the original book. Uncle Remus, played by James Baskett, told a group of white children the stories of Br’er Rabbit, including the most well-known story of the tar baby.

The story of the tar baby follows Br’er Fox setting out a doll made of tar in order to catch Br’er Rabbit. When Br’er Rabbit passes the doll and says hello, the doll doesn’t answer. Br’er Rabbit becomes insulted by the doll’s manners, attacking it out of anger and getting stuck. In the story, the tar baby represents white slave owners’ control over Black bodies, and the usage of this control to trap and oppress other Black Americans.

The more Br’er Rabbit tried to get unstuck from the tar, the more entangled he got. Br’er Rabbit pleads to the fox: “Do anything you want with me – roas' me, hang me, skin me, drown me – but please, Br'er Fox, don't fling me in dat brier-patch." The Fox throws Br’er Rabbit into the Briar Patch to inflict maximum pain, but doesn’t know that the thorns of the patch allow Br’er Rabbit to get out of the sticky tar and escape once again. 

Upon its release in 1946, the film was met with protests by the NAACP despite white film critics' positive reviews. Additionally, Baskett was not allowed to attend the premiering of the film due to Atlanta’s segregation laws despite being depicted as having a familial “Uncle Remus” relationship with white America. 

The film became popular amongst Disney fans, and would occasionally show in movie theaters until the 1980s. After that, it was never shown again and never got a release on home video due to itsf racist themes. In the wake of the George Floyd killing, Disney announced that it would re-theme the Splash Mountain attractions at both of their North American Parks to a Princess and the Frog theme. 

The announcement was met with fierce pushback, including petitions and drawings using the phrase “Br’er lives matter,” which highlights either a lack of understanding or a willful ignorance among fans that want to keep the ride open. Turning Black oppression into a family film, amusement park ride, and entire franchise shows that American culture will go out of its way to reframe ethnocide and the horrors of the antebellum South into a narrative of Black and white familial togetherness that never existed.

Subscribe now