#caic2122

[202006733caic2122]

A White House Christmas falls on deaf ears

At the end of another hard year for the American population, the time-honoured tradition of the First Lady decorating the White House for Christmas is upon us and it demonstrates the true capitalist nature of the country.

Taking 100 hundred volunteers roughly a week to construct and costing $139,000 with a further $171,000 for the live event, the whole event seems the definition of overkill.  The theme this year being ‘gifts from the heart’ with each room having a sub theme.  After nearly 2 years of COVID-19 wreaking havoc across the country, having killed 800,000 people, the display seems somewhat insensitive to those who have lost so much and been struggling in an economy with the highest rate of inflation since 1982.  

With all these things considered, it is not surprising that people have taken to the internet to voice their unhappiness with the situation with one twitter user pointing out that the decorations cost ‘3-4 people’s total yearly income’.  The criticism seems more than valid, especially considering it was paid for using tax dollars.

The good intention seems to be there in the excessive displays, the East Landing tree honouring service men and women who have died, but it has seemingly fallen on deaf ears for the American population.

After such economic and mental hardship caused by the past 2 years, I wonder whether this tradition should have been abandoned altogether.  Should the First Family take a subdued approach in solidarity with the rest of America?

[202006290caic2122]

Arizona’s Race Relations and History of Gang Violence

America’s history with gang violence is complicated; it’s only been further muddied by Donald Trump’s presidency and the dystopian power of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). In states like Arizona, which have a diverse population of predominantly Hispanic and Caucasian communities, racial tensions have escalated since remarks by Trump claiming that Mexican immigrants were “drug dealers, rapists, and criminals.”. In Arizona, where 56% of the population is white, and 36% are Hispanic, race relations seemingly worsened during Trump’s presidency. 

Recent news stories have only escalated the coverage and controversy regarding gang violence and crime in Arizona. In Scottsdale and Phoenix, MS-16 gang members were arrested after a DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) raid uncovered ammunition, guns, and many illicit substances, such as fentanyl and cocaine. The narrative, however, that gangs have racial and socio-economic stereotypes is both outdated and offensive. In Phoenix and Tucson, especially in poorer communities on the city’s outskirts, police have targeted young street dealers - the most recent investigation led to nine arrested. Juvenile Probation Officer, Hellen Carter, says gangs originally existed to “protect the neighbourhood” but became a “cancer”. 

When many cross-state arrests and gangs are young Hispanic men and women, there are questions about how these young people fall into lives of crime. Instead of disproportionally arresting young Hispanic people and turning a blind eye to the humanitarian atrocities happening in border states and Mexico, America should channel funds into drug and crime rehabilitation projects for young people rather than the racist incarceration complex. 

[202140567caic2122]

The ‘Fierce Urgency of Now’ - The Paris Agreement and US Presidential Leaders on Climate Change

President Joe Biden has successfully reentered the Unites States into the Paris Agreement from 2015. According to the principle “the best time to cut emissions was decades ago; the second-best time is today,” did Biden sign the Agreement on his very first day in office, which was on January 20, 2021. The accord went into effect after some legal steps on February 19, 2021, representing a milestone in combatting climate change.

But wait a minute: Why did he have to RE-enter the Agreement in the first place?

His predecessor, former President Donald Trump did not so much believe in climate change, or at least he did not see the ‘fierce urgency of now’. Trump’s determination as the President of the United States with the largest economy in the world was to ‘Make America Great Again’ according to the principle ‘America First.’ Being convinced that the Paris Agreement on Climate Action, as Trump puts it, “handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at (America’s) expense” he sought to leave the Agreement. Furthermore, in his rage about other countries not putting America first, he was convinced that “it is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania –along with many, many other locations within our great country– before Paris, France.” Because well, it is time to make America great again.

       However, he did not leave the Agreement right away. No, he was willing to negotiate to see if he could make a deal that’s fair. “And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.” He was not able to negotiate a deal that in his eyes would have been a fair deal and thus he decided to leave the Paris Agreement in 2017, neglecting the threat of global warming, because hey that’s fine…

The United States, however, did not officially leave the Paris Agreement before November 4, 2020. This is because former President Barack Obama, who signed the United States into the Agreement in the first place, and his negotiators took precautions in order to ensure that it would take some time for the US to get out of the Agreement if there was a change in leadership. This was important because Obama had already been in his second term of office and a change in leadership was approaching, but also because Obama used his executive authority to sign the Paris Agreement, knowing that not everyone would be happy with the deal, after the US, despite the Clinton administration’s efforts to convince the Senate, never ratified the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, another accord in which developed countries wanted to tackle climate change while reducing emissions.

As part of these precautions, it was agreed that no member state could leave the Agreement within the first three years after ratification. Further, a twelve-months’ notice needs to be given before leaving. And so Trump was not able to give this 12-months’ notice before November 4, 2019.

 Trump’s nation-first mindset does remind one of what is happening around the world at this very moment. Countries around the world are trying to protect their people from the covid-19 pandemic, from the coronavirus, demonstrating a strong nation-first mindset as well. So let us shortly look at how well this nation-first mindset in fighting the crisis is working in order to consider if this is the right approach for climate action as well.

       The pandemic is affecting people all around the world and one would think that such a shared global threat would mobilize and generate global solidarity and cooperation. But instead of uniting people, the pandemic enforced nation-first thinking. And this approach, sadly and gladly, has had some success.  By putting up barriers, isolating and looking inwards, infection rates could be lowered, at least within the countries that are taking such measurements.

       However, this approach widens the gap and inequalities between developed and developing countries, between the global North and South. Developing countries do not have the means to fight the pandemic on their own, they need financial, technological, and scientific backing, especially to produce or distribute vaccines. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for global ceasefire so that vaccines could be distributed into areas of conflict.

Attempts such like this one and other attempts to help out poorer regions with vaccines against the virus have failed. Countries, especially developed countries, prefer to hoard vaccines for their own population, risking that they expire instead of providing these vaccines to poorer, developing countries or regions. This nation-first mindset, especially demonstrated by developed countries, has led to insufficient global vaccination and is a contributing factor of why the pandemic is still not combatted. Because in order to fight the virus, global solidarity and cooperation needs to be shown.

       You might now think, but there has been global cooperation, yes, but obviously not enough, because otherwise the pandemic would not still dictate our lives. Scientists around the world have worked on developing a vaccine against the virus and they have been successful due to their cooperation and not due to nation-first thinking. According to the International Monetary Fund, IMF, it is “thanks to spectacular collaboration among scientists, generous funding by governments, and private sector ingenuity” that a vaccine was able to be created much faster than expected. There won’t ever be a vaccine that can protect us from global warming, but what we can learn from the pandemic is, that when fighting global warming, we need cooperation on all levels, we need solidarity, we need to prioritize the climate crisis and we need governmental funding. What we do not need is nation-first thinking.

Just like the pandemic, global warming is not just economically devastating, but also more “likely to disproportionately impact the poor and deepen existing inequalities,” according to IMF reports. But the pandemic has shown us more than just this. It has also shown us that no nation can be safe unless all relevant players act together. There are no positive aspects of a nation-first thinking when it comes to global warming. Global warming needs global attention. Zach Cohen explained that “the rapid global spread of covid-19 has demonstrated that no matter how successful America is at fighting this pandemic here at home, we will never stop this threat unless we’re also fighting it around the world.” And this can be equally applied to global warming. All nations need to work together to achieve a global impact because as Obama said: “no nation, not even one as powerful as ours, can solve this challenge alone.  All of us have to solve it together.”

       The United States have a particular responsibility to solve this global challenge because they are the second largest carbon emitters after China, causing at least 15 percent of carbon dioxide.

And this is why being a member of the Paris Agreement is so important. The Agreement makes all members commit to reducing their carbon emissions and to work together towards this shared goal of combatting global warming by bringing global emissions to net zero.

Yes, due to the pandemic and stay-at-home policies as well as changed habits and consumption, there has been a decline in carbon emissions, according to the Pew Research Center. However, it is not clear if this decline is lasting or just temporarily. “Covid-19 resulted in a 7 percent drop in global emissions in 2020 because all economies shut down; to keep warming below 1.5˚ C, we would have to keep cutting emissions by an additional 7 percent every year for the next decade.” And thus, it was so important that the Unites States recommits to the Agreement because even though other nations are stepping up targets to reduce emissions and no nation followed the US’s withdrawal, the world will certainly struggle to meet its goals without the US’s cooperation and participation. Biden stated that he acknowledges that Trump’s decision has put the entire world behind achieving their net zero goal and he pledges to do better and to step up the game.

  How does and can Biden step up the game? Let’s have a look at what the Paris Agreement has been and is about.

The Paris Agreement, which has been agreed on December 12, 2015, and which has come into effect November 4, 2016, has been a historic turning point for global climate action because it united 195 nations, almost all the world’s nations, in a single agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions which are causing global warming. Obama acknowledged the threat of climate change, stating: “we’re the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, we’re the last generation that can do something about it,” and thus he pledged to cut emissions “between 26 percent and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025” with a further 80 percent reduction by 2050. Obama also committed to providing three billion dollars to the Green Climate Fund to help developing countries achieve similar goals. When Trump withdrew, he also stopped providing the needed money. Only one billion dollars have been paid so far. However, the United States’ withdrawal did not lead to a complete stillstand in climate action. Several initiatives such as US Climate Alliance, America’s Pledge, We Are Still In, and American Cities Climate Challenge, continued to work towards the goals pledged by Obama. But as demonstrated before, governmental backing is key to tackling systemic crises. Nonetheless these initiatives and efforts have been of great value.

The Biden administration ambitiously pledged to “achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030.” And net-zero emissions till 2050. However, after the very chaotic and inconsistent treatment of the topic of climate action by the US government, President Biden and his administration need to reestablish their trustworthiness before being able to regain their leadership role in climate action. Therefore, Biden took a leading role at the climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland last November, which has been postponed for a year due to the pandemic. Biden wants to assume the leading role while leading by example in order to be able to put pressure on other countries, especially China, the current biggest greenhouse gas emitter with more than 28 percent.

         President Biden is not just tackling climate change on an international basis, but also prioritizes climate action at home. Biden and his Vice-President Kamala Harris, stress the urgency of addressing climate change by making it one of four major crises which they will focus on during their presidency. The other three crises are the ongoing covid crises, the economy and racial injustices.

Obama has referred to this urgency in the past as well: “The one thing I was very certain of coming into office, was that we had to feel what Dr. King called, ‘The fierce urgency of now.’ That each year that passed, the problem got worse, and it was going to be harder and harder to roll back, or at least suspend the rise in temperatures that affect everything, from increases in natural disasters, to droughts that result in migration patterns, changes that in turn can lead to conflicts.”

       Biden and Harris refer to exactly this as well when communicating the urgency of climate action to the American citizens. They refer to the more frequent and more severe extreme weather events which the United States have been experiencing, especially in 2021. “Climate change repeatedly proved its deadly power in 2021, when the planet was hit by a series of extreme weather events, including record-breaking heat-waves, droughts, wildfires and floods. Experts roundly agreed these natural disasters were more severe as a result of the world warming up.” According to recent polls the 18 extreme weather events have led to an increase in the perceived connection between these natural catastrophes and human-caused climate change. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods etc. have caused many deaths and damage of more than 100 billion US dollars. The extreme events impact human safety, infrastructure, agriculture, water quantity and quality, and natural ecosystems. Furthermore, heat waves, for example, lead to an increased need and cost in air conditioning, droughts damage crops and storms and flooding can damage property, cause deaths, and displace people. One of the extreme examples is Hurricane Ida, which caused 95 deaths and 49 billion dollars damage when causing severe damage moving from New Orleans to New York.

By trying to make climate change feel more immediate, urgent, and personal, Biden and his administration make use of what we learned from the pandemic. When something feels immediate and personal people are much more likely to act and change their habits than when something feels far away and impersonal. “Combatting the coronavirus pandemic required each one of us to do our part, change our habits and daily routines and make personal sacrifices,” can we do this for our climate as well, for our Earth’s health?

Climate activist Greta Thunberg wanted elected leaders to acknowledge climate change, just like the pandemic, as a crisis: “So what we need now is to raise awareness and to create public opinion to treat the crisis like a crisis. Because if people are not aware of the crisis that we face, of course they wouldn’t put pressure on the elected leaders.” And maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel because when Biden called global warming a crisis, this was a step into the right direction. Maybe Biden can lead the United States and the world into a healthier and more equal future, fighting covid-19 while supporting “climate justice and a clean energy economy.”

What I would like you to take away from this post, is that neither the covid-crisis nor the climate crisis will be solved anytime soon if not each one of us does their part. It can be very useful to look at both crises because our health and our environment are intertwined. As we can all play our part individually, it is also important to keep an eye on governments and therewith on the global level. As has been shown, global warming, just as the pandemic, is a global challenge which needs a global solution. I hope to have demonstrated that therefore being part of the Paris Agreement on climate action is so important. “The COVID-19 crisis will not be re-solved until all countries bring the pandemic under control through widespread vaccination, and the climate crisis will not be solved until all emitters swing into action, bringing global emissions to net zero,” which is what the Agreement is targeting.

       Let us listen to what science is telling us: global warming is happening if we don’t act now, it will be irreversible. Let us not let happening what happened under the Trump administration, taking the entire world backward by denying climate change. Let us all lead by example on an individual and global level.

       We can’t risk not being heard. We need to listen and act just as our leaders need to listen and act. We need global cooperation and solidarity.

       Let us take climate action. Let us help Biden to do better. Let us all be part of the solution.

[201905672caic2122]

The Best and Worst of the White House Christmas Decorations

It’s that time of the year again, it’s almost Christmas and that means the White House Christmas decorations have been revealed in a tradition dating back to Jackie Kennedy in 1961. This got me thinking, what are the best and worst versions of this holiday tradition to ever grace the White House?

Starting with the worst. Out of a few questionable decorations from throughout the years, Claudia Johnson’s 1967 decorations take the worst spot.

Just look at this, the decorations are out of proportion with the middle and top being so overcrowded you can’t even see the tree, making the reasonably decorated bottom part seem bare in comparison. Personally, I think the popcorn strands are the worst part of it and unfortunately, they really stand out as the sheer amount of decorations merge into each other meaning nothing else about the tree stands out. These decorations have been called “psychedelic” but really, they’re just a mess.

Now onto the best, and this may be controversial, but Melania Trumps’ bizarre 2018 effort takes this spot.

I know the “murder trees” aren’t exactly traditional and I do think these decorations are a little strange, but what makes these the best is the fact the Melania just didn’t care about these decorations. The strangeness of her decorations rebelled against an outdated tradition that she was forced to participate in and that perpetuates the stereotype of women being homemakers and, in my opinion, that makes them the best version of the White House decorations.

[202006290caic2122]

Colin Powell’s Legacy Will Outlive Us All

When people remember Colin Powell, they remember his presentation to the UN falsely alleging that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and hoarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He proved this by using a whiteboard, fabricated evidence, and a vial of ‘anthrax’. Until then, Powell had been the first Black Secretary of State, the second Black four-star general, and a wounded Vietnam veteran. On 5 February 2003, he added liar to that roster. 

Powell is a brilliant contrast between how the UK and US media reflect on the war in Iraq that led to the deaths of millions. The UK has a history of blaming an individual rather than an institution for humanitarian crimes (cc: imperialism). Powell is considered to have “owned his mistakes”; his reputation as an advocate for civil rights is considered more significant. There are no real consequences for Powell, unlike former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who faced war crime trials and political defeats. 

“What might have happened if, for once, Powell had refused to follow orders?”. This cynical question has an answer: millions of deaths prevented. Powell not only embodies America’s need to be ‘great again’; he also illustrates how the US military complex is built on lies and arrogance. American patriotism has created a failed state in Iraq and decimated the Middle East. This legacy has outlived Powell, and it will continue to cause further grief to Iraqi citizens well into the future.

[202005034caic2122]

Colin Powell and the impact he had on representation in government

In the wake of a mass movement dedicated to the fight against the oppression that African Americans face in their day-to-day lives, also known as the Black Lives Matter movement, in June of 2020, it’s clear to see the positive consequences that have come from their protests. For example, statues of confederate soldiers have been removed in states like Kentucky, and the promise of adopting measures to reform police departments from others is a liberating step forward for Black Americans.

However, through all of the unveiled systematic racism and hopeful changes within society, it’s important to keep a focus on what still needs to change.

Colin Powell, who sadly passed away from COVID-19 on October 18th, 2021, held the impressive achievement of being the first African American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (from 1989 – 1993) and the secretary of state (from 2001 – 2005). Whilst gaining both of these positions was a step in the right direction for black representation in the US government, there’s still a long slog to go before black Americans are near close to being well-represented.

Despite the acquisition of government roles, many gaps still remain as there are “57 House members in…Congress [that] are black”, which equals just 13% of the total percentage of House members.

In terms of what the public think about this, “Four in ten Black adults” said that electing more black people in office would be a “very effective tactic” for racial equality. Only 23% of white adults felt the same.

[202140567caic2122]

The Exoneration of Khalil Islam and Muhammad Aziz: “The Crime is Still Not Solved, But the Injustice has been Remedied. And That Is a Lot More than Nothing.”

Islam and Aziz have been wrongfully convicted for the 1965 assassination of Malcolm X. On November 18th, however, they were exonerated thanks to a re-investigation of the case, sparked by the Netflix Series “Who Killed Malcolm X?”

Yes, the delay in justice is tragic, yes, the evidence that was withheld in 1965 by the NYPD and the FBI raises questions about government’s complicity in the assassination and yes, it is sad that the re-investigation was opened due to a Netflix series rather than due to the available evidence. All of this points to miscarriages of justice “in a criminal system weighed against people of color.”

But the exoneration of Islam and Aziz must still be seen as a progressive step forward even in the light of delay and injustice. “The tragic and unjust events of the past can never be erased but exonerating these men is a righteous and well-deserved affirmation of their true character.” It is important to right historic wrongs and to officially correct false historic narrative, because we as a society need to learn from the past in order to prevent making the same mistakes in the future. By acknowledging and correcting the error, we can take a step into a better future.

But most importantly because Malcolm X’s ideas intercept with the BLM Movement. His daughter states that the BLM Movement today still fights for the same things as Malcolm X did. Thus, in order to fully grasps BLM, we need to understand the past and through the exoneration, the past can now be evaluated righteously.

‘He who controls the past controls the future’ as George Orwell ones said.

[201905672caic2122]

Did the FBI Kill Malcolm X?

The exoneration of Muhammed Aziz and Khalil Islam from their conviction of the murder of Malcolm X was long overdue. Both men served over 20 years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit in a complete failure of the American justice system.

New evidence from their second trial claims to show that the NYPD and FBI may have had a role in the assassination and the framing of Aziz and Islam.

For example, one NYPD officer claimed he was pressured into luring members of Malcolm X’s security team into committing crimes just a few days before the assassination. Consequently, they were unable to attend the event Malcolm X was killed at, making his assassination easier. Also, new documents claim to show that eyewitness testimonies against Aziz and Islam came from FBI informants claiming to see Aziz and Islam during the assassination when, in reality, Aziz was at home recovering from wounds in both legs.

So, did the FBI and NYPD conspire to kill Malcolm X and frame Aziz and Islam?

Not according to a recent enquiry which “found no evidence that the police or FBI conspired to kill Malcolm X”. Although, I think that Malcolm X’s killing was convenient as he was viewed as dangerous due to his views on racial issues and was under surveillance at the time of his death and the botched investigation certainly raises a lot of questions about their role in the trial as well as in the death of Malcolm X.

[202006733caic2122]

“I drew my red line too late”: Beth Fukumoto the first Republican to change sides

Heading to Washington DC in June of 2013, Beth Fukutomo had one thought before entering the Republican Committee headquarters, words that she had rehearsed over and over- “we are committed to electing candidates who reflect the full diversity of our nation.”  Coming from her home state of Hawaii she was there to announce a $6 million investment by the Republican party to support female and candidates of colour at a state level.  For Fukotomo, this was a reflection of the party she wanted to help build.

Beth Fukumoto, now 38, served as the youngest minority leader of the Hawaiian House of Representatives from 2014.  She held this role until January 25th 2017 when she was voted out of her role by all but one of her colleagues, Representative Cynthia Thielen, for comments she had made criticising President Trump at the Honolulu Women’s March just four days prior.  It was later announced by her successor, Representative Andria Tupola, that there had been discussions about removing her from the role for two years and the decision was not influenced by her comments at the march.

This claim seems hard to believe given the timing of her removal, it seems too convenient to be a coincidence.  Tupola rejected many of Fukumoto’s claims of insults at the Republican convention which are not the words of someone who respects their predecessor regardless of a difference of opinions.  If there was discussion about replacing Fukumoto two years prior, her lack of knowledge towards this is surprising.  I would expect that the leader of the party would be aware of people considering having her removed from her position.

During her speech in Honolulu, Fukumoto discussed how her eight-year-old niece had watched at the Republican Party convention as a room full of people “tossed insults and booed me” because she was refusing to support Donald Trump as the party’s nominee and said she “thought his remarks were racist and sexist”.  Fukumoto also explained how she had told her niece afterwards the truth about the derogatory words being thrown her way because “little kids should know the difference between right and wrong”.

There is something to be said for an Asian-American woman from Hawaii calling out the Presidential nominee as racist and sexist.  The world of politics, specifically the Republican party, is still overwhelmingly filled by white middle-class men who seem to deny such problems in the world but to have someone who has experienced these issues directly calling President Trump out for it, it makes it harder for them to ignore.

Hawaii is largely unique as a state in comparison to the mainland United States because the islands were the final state to be admitted into the union in 1959 following nearly a hundred years of turmoil, largely caused by white businessmen who wanted to use the land for their own benefit without consideration for the native people.  This is an attitude that remains to this day, with dismissal for the native peoples, their religion and important rituals seem unimportant to the standard white American, much like colonial Americans disregarded the native tribes of the mainland. 

As proven by Barack Obama’s time in office and the conspiracy theory that he was not an American citizen despite providing his birth certificate and birthplace of Hawaii, the attitudes towards Hawaii by some of mainland America is as if it was a foreign country, not a state.

Following her public criticism of the President, within just 24 hours of the march, she was already hearing “rumblings” of people trying to have her removed as minority leader, including calls from colleagues within the House to meet and calls for her to resign.  According to Wayne Yoshioka, of Hawaii Public radio, her Republican colleagues were trying to remove her “because she participated in a women’s march against the Trump presidency.” 

Fellow Republican Representative, Bob McDermott, criticised Fukumoto during the House assembly by suggesting that she had a high level of responsibility and was no longer speaking for just herself.  In his opinion, all she did was attack the party but he was cut off before he could continue to give other members a negative motive. 

The only person who chose to keep Fukumoto as minority leader, Representative Cynthis Thielen, outwardly supported her on the House floor, suggesting Fukumoto as “the face of Republicanism as it should be, but never will.”

Fukumoto was told by her colleagues in the Hawaiian House of Representatives that she would be able to stay in her leadership position if she became “committed to not have a dispute with our president” for the remainder of his time in office.  In her speech to her colleagues after being voted out of her position she said that she wasn’t willing to do that because she believed that their commitment should instead be to working as people to “criticise power when power is wrong.”

After being removed from her role as minority leader in late January, Fukumoto spoke to NBC in February about what had happened including why speaking at the women’s march was so important to her.  She explained that many young children had watched the election in 2016 who had left “believing that you can bully people and still win”.  Her main reason during the speech itself was that “it’s our jobs to make sure they watch us fight back” against the victory of someone filled with anger and hate towards so many people.  The emphasis was on getting people involved from the ground up but to “do it with kindness”.  What was most important to Fukumoto is that everyone treats each other with the respect they deserve regardless of their affiliations and who they voted for.

In her interview with NBC, Fukumoto discussed the fact that she disagreed with the direction that the Republican party was going under President Trump and the influence of his administration, calling it a “punishing descent”.  Despite this being the call out that removed her from leadership, she has previously clashed with other party members, once being accused of not being a true Republican because “my tone or stature is not oppositional enough.”

In March of 2017, Beth Fukumoto announced her resignation from the Republican party alongside her intentions to join the Democratic party should they accept her.  The decision was largely based on the reaction of her colleagues following the women’s march which is not unsurprising.  Who would want to remain part of a party that ousted you for opinions and expressing thoughts about something you were passionate about?  She explained that there was no longer a place for her in the Republican party and it was not something she could be a part of anymore.

When speaking to Time following this announcement, she made it clear her resignation was not her departure from politics.  She expressed her concerns for the changing climate of the Republican party both nation and statewide.  Fukumoto initially hoped that they could turn it around with Hawaii being such a diverse state, explaining that the Republican implemented travel bans won’t stop demographics within the country from changing.  She believed that Hawaii “could create a party that actually listened to minority voices” but it became clear to her that there just wasn’t a hope for change.  The party was quickly becoming out of touch with the Democratic majority within Hawaii and as a result she decided to resign.

Once again, Fukumoto explained her reasoning for attending the Honolulu women’s march and how important it was to speak out, especially for the benefit of young people who already saw the President as a bully.  She discussed that the key message she wanted to deliver was that “kindness and respect should always win” irrespective of who you may vote for.  Her belief is that women should start demanding respect from politicians, at the least, which is quite frankly the bare minimum and something that women should already receive from people representing them but are disappointingly not.  Although why would politicians treat women with respect when their leader is a man who is so blatantly sexist?

Furthermore, Fukumoto explained to Time the dynamics of a state House where the majority of Republicans were women.  She praises Cynthia Thielen for always standing up for what was right in the House.  Interestingly, Fukumoto explains that behind closed doors some of her colleagues have told her to “just learn to deal better with men” and to feed their egos.  This distinctly highlights the difference of opinions in how to deal with sexism within politics.  Most of her colleagues aimed to keep their heads down but Fukumoto and Representative Thielen constantly confronted it.

When asked how political parties can address sexism from within, Fukumoto suggested more women in leadership positions, having seen a difference in how men treated women after a woman was appointed to the finance chair.  She also cited an incident where a colleague, unnamed, had suggested that she was “directionless” because of her divorce and that if he was unhappy with her, he would scold her like a child.  Another, also nameless, colleague talked about being the one who “discovered” her when it is quite clear that she is successful because of her own hard work to get elected into the house.  It’s no wonder that she chose to leave the party when her colleagues, of whom she was leading, treated her like a child to be chastised.

In June of 2017 the Democratic Party in Hawaii voted to accept Beth Fukumoto.  Most of her constituents were supportive of her move to the party with 76% supporting the move and the feedback from around the country when it was announced was largely positive.  Many thanked her for voicing publicly what many people were already feeling.  This move made her the first elected official to move from the Republican party to the Democrats where she then served as the executive director of the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

In 2018, Fukumoto ran for the open seat in the United States House of Representatives in Hawaii’s 1st Congressional District.  Former Congressman Ed Case won and she finished fifth with 6.3% of the votes.  She was also included in Business Insider’s “8 of the most influential millennial women in US politics.”  Fukumoto was also included in Apolitical’s 2018 list of “The World’s most influential young people in government”.

After spending the past decade in politics, Fukumoto spent a year in 2020 at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government writing and studying.  This is in addition to a Bachelor's degree in American Studies with a minor in sociology and a Masters degree in English from Georgetown University.  She also spends her time speaking about the potential future of American Democracy and partisan politics as a fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation.

Since her time at the Harvard Kennedy school, Fukumoto has spent her time writing and speaking about the futures of women in power and public leadership.  She also helps to train individuals who are new to the world of politics and social movements.

In August of 2020, Fukumoto published an opinion piece in the Washington Post discussing her experiences in the Republican party, her hopes and why she ultimately chose to leave for the Democrats.  An important line that sticks out is Fukumoto’s admission that “I drew my red line too late” having made regrettable decisions in the house and not questioned things such as laws that were not designed to protect voters simply because she didn’t have the courage.

Written pre-election, Fukumoto makes the assessment that the dissection the party will need following the 2020 presidential election will make the one in 2012 seem small.  The 2012 report warned that the Republican party would continue to lose elections if they didn’t make changes.

The Republican party she was working to build was one that had a vision of “growth and opportunity” where she had been promised diversity and a chance to “reimagine the foundation” of the party as it was.  She mentions the horror of Donald Trump admitting he may have supported Japanese American internment during the Second World War and speaking out about it.  

In the end, Fukumoto’s message to the Republicans is that they must decide where to draw their red line and decide at what point it is too much.  

If it wasn’t children in cages at the borders or ignorance to the severity of coronavirus which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans, what would it be?  At what point will the Republicans wake up and realise that the path Trump is leading them down is one of no return?  It certainly doesn’t seem that it was after the 2020 presidential election with demands of fraudulent voting came through in their thousands.  

Beth Fukumoto is the representation of what a Republican in the changing world of America should look like.  She is looking forward to the future, ready to accept the new diverse world and build a more compassionate nation for everyone.    She recognised when she had made mistakes, mistakes she recognises that will stay with her, but she has also stood firm with her own beliefs, refusing to be swayed to another opinion that she cannot support.  

If the Republican party all looked a little bit more like Beth Fukumoto, then perhaps we wouldn’t have seen President Trump in power at all, or at least his impeachment may have been successful.  In a political landscape defined by his disruptive presidency, America needs more people like Fukumoto who will speak out and stand strong against the criticism. 

[202006290caic2122]

“I’m for truth, no matter who tells it.” What the Exoneration of Malcom X’s Suspected Killers Says About the US Justice System

21 February 1965. Malcolm X walked onto the stage in the Audubon Ballroom to deliver a speech about black rights before being shot dead by masked gunmen. Flash forward to 19 November 2021, and two of the three convicted gunmen, Muhammad Aziz and Khalil Islam, have been exonerated for his murder. 

This is definitely a historical milestone to celebrate. Still, the case of Malcolm X’s assassination proves that faults within the US justice system that consistently and repeatedly fails young, black men are still as prominent today as they were in the 1960s. The FBI ignored critical evidence, which was only recently uncovered after a 22-month investigation. This is another in a long list of criminal cases throughout US history where black men have been failed by the justice system. 

The use of conspiracy theories and Netflix true crime documentaries have also been attributed to the outcome and verdict of this investigation, which begs the question as to why it requires entertainment giants and viewers to pave the road to justice for men wrongly accused of crimes. Profiting off the pain of wrongly accused black men is seen in the twenty-first century, with social media being used to promote fake activist pages in a #BLM era. In creating true crime documentaries on these stories for entertainment, no matter how historical they are, the system of justice in the US runs the risk of being undermined and proven to be ineffective and redundant in protecting the lives of black men. 

[202005034caic2122]

How sexism has provided the opportunity for more female involvement in politics

Since the nineteenth amendment, on August 18th, 1920, stated that “the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”, (with the exception of women of colour, until 1965), it meant that women since have been cooking up their own campaigns in an effort to make a dent in the male-dominated political world in America.

Despite this increase, women are still heavily underrepresented in American politics, and it’s estimated that, internationally, “at the current rate, gender equality in the highest positions of power will not be reached for another 130 years”.  However, with the recent political events involving women, such as the attempt to overturn the Roe V. Wade laws, which would prevent women from having access to safe and legal abortions, female presence in the American government has never been more important.

The Roe V. Wade law was ratified in 1973 with the aim to protect pregnant woman’s right to an abortion, however, since then, it has sparked harsh debates over who gets to decide the legality of abortions and whether morality of religious stances should factor into those decisions. Although more recently, it has become a much more prevalent discussion, with the attempt to overturn this law by the majority of the Supreme Court, with the support of republicans and evangelical Christians. The heartbeat bill has already picked up momentum over the past few years and has shortened the window for women to be able to access abortions as it bans abortions after a heartbeat can be detected. Several states have also shortened the opportunity for women to access abortions, usually from 24 to 26 weeks, however, states like Alabama, it is as short as 22 weeks, and there has been a purging of abortion clinics within the state. For example, there are currently only three within the state of Alabama, and a mere 37% of people believe that abortion should be legal, aligning with Alabama’s reputation as a heavily religious and largely republican state. Similarly to Alabama, Louisiana is also a devoutly religious state, as “75% [of people] say they believe in God with absolute certainty”, and most people who live in Louisiana also believe that abortion should be illegal, however, there have been both pro-life and pro-choice activist groups and protests within the state. Alongside these protests, Women’s Marches in Washington DC and other cities across the nation also took place, prior to the Supreme Court’s deliberation on abortion laws. Women’s March has been an organisation that has become critical in bringing women’s voices and opinions to the forefront of politics.

Since 2017, sexual assault has also been a predominant topic for many women in and out of the political world, with examples of sexual violence against women working within the government from other political party members. For example, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, also known by her initials AOC, spoke publicly about the harassment she received from republican politician Ted Yoho, as well as experiencing sexual assault at another time in her life.

In America, 54% of people who have experienced sexual violence were aged 18-34, with 1 in 6 women being the victim of an attempted or completed rape. The high rates of sexual violence, specifically against women is proof that the American government should be investing time and effort into preventing these attacks and providing safety for those who are victims of sexual abuse, however, there are no laws for victim protection, and no opportunity for the victim to receive therapy or insurance. The 2005 Violence Against Women Act supposedly ensures that the victim is able to access a forensic examination for free under the American Healthcare System, however, it’s possible through loopholes and shoddy law-making that these victims may still receive a bill for it. Protests against the poor treatment of sexual assault victims have, more recently, been taking place on college campuses, particularly against fraternities, where sexual assault culture seems to be normalised. As AOC stated, sexual violence is a culture that accepts “violence and violent language against women, an entire structure of power that supports that”.

A Pew Research Centre study surrounding gender equality in America concluded that many people across the nation believe that Sexual Harassment is the biggest obstacle in achieving gender equality, with 72% of men and 82% of women agreeing, roughly translating to three-quarters of the country.

Other obstacles that people believe to be large indicators of hinderance in the fight for gender equality included women in positions of power and women not having the same legal rights for men. In terms of women’s suffrage, “about half of U.S. adults (49%) – including 52% of men and 46% of women- say that granting women the right to vote has been the most important milestone in advancing the position of women in the country”. In the House of Representatives, there are currently 120 women (122 by 2023), who make up exactly 27.6% of the total number of politicians there, 31 republicans and 91 democrats. Evidently, there has been a large increase in the number of women being elected to represent their district in the House of Representatives, but democrats heavily outweigh the number of female republicans that are elected, which shows how, even within their own party, republicans do not view women in the same light as men, and therefore, the diverse opinions of women is stifled.

Despite the hinderance of female voices within the House of Representatives, female voters have historically made their opinions known by having a higher turnout than men at the polls every year since 1984.

The difference in party affiliation is also clear between men and women, with 56% of women aligning with the democratic party compared to a smaller 42% of men, in 2018/2019.

This continued exercise of women voting in elections is an example of how more and more women are inserting themselves into the political narrative, especially in an effort to improve the lives of themselves and other women across the country. Along with the rise in female politicians like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Candace Owens and Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the House of Representatives, American women are quickly diverting attention to the injustices that women face within their day-to-day lives and how government legislation and support can change that. Unfortunately, with the male majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and within both the republican and democratic party, women’s voices are far from being equal to their male counterpart. Despite the lack of laws to support the feminist movement in creating a more equal society for everyone, it’s inspirational to see many people continue to take a stand against misogyny, not exclusively within the political world, strictly between political parties and members, but also in the streets, where people take part in protests with the aim to project their voice on issues that they weren’t consulted on, despite being the demographic that it affects the most.

[202140567caic2122]

Colin Powell’s Legacy - “He will be Remembered for Making the Faulty Case for Invading Iraq”

Colin Powell died on October 18, 2021, due to complications from Covid-19. He is remembered for his left behind legacy, but also for the speech he gave, in February 2003, in front of the UN.  

In this speech he presented evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and therewith he justified the invasion of Iraq. The US, later, had to find out that this evidence was faulty.

This led to deaths, destruction, and instability in Iraq, as well as it damaged Powell’s good reputation. In remembrance, Al Jazeera, and several other news media, quote Iraqis holding Powell responsible for the many deaths that the invasion caused.

However, it is important to consider the context in which Powell gave his speech. The Bush administration was known for wanting to declare War on Terror. Therefor Bush needed Powell’s support. The New Yorker reports that Bush used Powell’s credibility and popularity and the New York Times supports this by calling Powell “the war’s most effective salesman.”  Powell, after triple checking the evidence with his staff, “ultimately presented what he believed to be the truth.” And when finding out that the evidence he used turned out to be false he expressed deep regrets.

“It’s important when considering Colin Powell’s legacy that he isn’t simply defined by a U.N. Security Council presentation which, in the end, proved not to be true.” Powell deserves to be remembered for his success as a soldier, for being the first African American national-security adviser and Secretary of State and for many more breakthrough moments in his life.

[201905672caic2122]

Colin Powell: Vietnam and His Legacy

Whichever way you see him, war criminal or trailblazer, there’s no denying that Colin Powell has left behind a complicated legacy. He was the first black secretary of state and second black four-star general as well as being a war criminal who caused millions of deaths.

The beginning of this legacy and the signs of who Powell would become started in Vietnam.

Originally sent to serve as a senior tactical advisor, Powell advised three different Vietnamese army commanders during his first tour and was commended for his “determination, physical stamina, and professional competence”. He also showed his bravery when he rescued his commander from a helicopter crash earning him the Soldier’s Medal for bravery. Powell also earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his actions during the Vietnam war, showing the best of his ability.

However, despite his achievements and accolades, Powell was involved in a cover-up of perhaps the worst atrocity committed by the U.S Army during the Vietnam war; the My Lai massacre. Over 500 innocent civilians were murdered by American soldiers with some being raped and mutilated before being killed. During the investigation into the massacre, Powell initially denied it happened and said the relationship between American soldiers and Vietnamese civilians was excellent. Powell has also never shown any remorse for his brutal “drain-the-sea” tactics which included burning countless civilian villages.

Powell’s time in Vietnam showed him at his best and worst, the achievements and controversy making it the perfect encapsulation of his complex legacy.

[202006733caic2122]

Colin Powell and the My Lai Massacre: cover up or another cog in the system?

Awarded both the purple heart and the bronze star, four star US Army general Colin Powell died from Covid-related complications in October 2021.  His career as the first black secretary of state is one worthy of respect but his early military career is one shrouded by accusations and cover up claims.

In November of 1968, at the time, Major Powell opened a letter for the general in charge of the war effort from a Vietnam veteran, accusing the Army of war crimes.  This arrived 8 months after the My Lai Massacre in which up to 500 hundred villagers were killed.  The official story was that 128 Viet Cong soldiers had died and 3 weapons seized, a story Powell repeated instead of the facts he knew.  The letter was dismissed by superiors and Powell reported that it was unfortunate the ‘allegations’ were not brought to the “immediate superiors” and that “relations between American soldiers and Vietnamese people were excellent”.

Although his part in the cover up was small, it was unsurprising according to historian Jefferey Matthews.  “His superiors had clearly set the example,” he wrote, and Powell’s “small but unhesitating contribution” reflected this.  

In 1970 the details of the massacre were finally made public and Powell was accused of ‘whitewashing’ the disaster.

Despite this, Colin Powell has had a long and successful career in the eyes of the public, largely unaffected by the tragedy.  Would this have been the case if Powell hadn’t gone along with the story he was fed?

[202006290caic2122]

The Sackler Dynasty: Addiction, Opioids, and The Lucrative Business of Art Collecting

Interior of a Pharmacy, with Four Figures - Jos van Bree (c.1800-1860)

The opioid epidemic has crippled American families and communities across the US, resulting in over 500,000 drug-related deaths and counting. The story of the addictive drug OxyContin and its creators, Purdue Pharma (and by all accounts: The Sackler Family), is a shadowy tale of exploitation, crime, and a family dynasty so powerful it believed itself to be untouchable. The opioid epidemic unravelled the Sackler dynasty, posing the first real challenge to their empire whilst causing havoc in the world of art. The Sacklers, perceived as being equally pharmaceutical giants and patrons of the arts, balanced corruption with philanthropy. In decades where America prioritised foreign policy over domestic spending, are we really surprised that museums, such undervalued but appreciated aspects of society, are kept afloat by lucrative business deals and shady philanthropists?

While I initially set out to research why museums and cultural institutions accepted such lucrative donations from companies like Purdue Pharma (and by association the Sacklers), I soon realised I couldn’t ignore the hundreds of thousands of stories about corruption, addiction, and OxyContin. To examine this thoroughly, I had to fully understand the reach of the Sackler family and what made them so powerful. I had to also realise that underneath the controversy surrounding museums like The Met and the Guggenheim were families struggling to deal with addiction and lost loved ones. Whilst this is as much an article about the lucrative world of art collection and shady philanthropists, it is equally about the victims of the Sackler dynasty and of opioid addiction, who are fighting to be seen and longing for justice. 

Arthur Sackler Sr.; with his brothers Mortimer and Raymond.

Let’s start at the beginning. 

Arthur, Raymond and Mortimer Sackler were described as “The Modern Medici’s”. The trio cemented the Sackler family name in enterprises ranging from American pharmaceuticals and advertising in the early to mid-twentieth century, amassing a fortune that would place them on Forbes’ America’s Richest Families (even in 2020, they still rank at number 30). Whilst Arthur, the eldest of the three, secured business ventures and took on Madison Avenue’s top advertising firms, his brothers commandeered side projects and promoted the philanthropical face of the Sackler firm. Indeed, the brothers built an astounding business portfolio that, as author Patrick Radden Keefe explores in his book Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty, featured recognisable names, such as Pfizer and Hoffman-La Roche.

An Advert for Valium, created for Hoffman-La Roche. Released by A. Sackler's Advertising Firm, William Douglas McAdams 

It was Arthur; however, that was the driving force behind the family enterprise. After just two years, Arthur secured the president position of prestigious advertising firm William Douglas McAdams. Apparently, his marketing ability would extend to every industry the Sackler’s touched. Creating what was described in an article in the New Yorker as “very serious, clinical” adverts for drugs and medicines, the Sackler brothers turned William Douglas McAdams into the ‘go-to’ agency for pharmaceutical companies. The determination to build and cement the Sackler name in the history books is one of Arthur Sackler’s most notable features. In Keefe’s book Empire of Pain, he notes how secret deals with competing advertising firms and FDA officials (Food and Drug Administration) secured the Sackler’s fortune. This is repeatedly questioned by those who encounter members of the Sackler family: how did they get rich?

The Sackler fortune had been amassed from drug advertising, specifically under-researched, over-hyped drug advertising. The controversy surrounding Valium, which saw some long-term users hospitalised and dependant on the tranquillizer, had been brushed under the carpet, much to the Sackler’s benefit. For Arthur, he spent any profit as quickly as it was earned. He had developed a borderline obsessive affection for Chinese and Asian art. As described by Keefe, his art obsession became so vast that he owned the most extensive private collection of Chinese art in the world. As journalist Christopher Glazek so poetically notes: “Addiction is a curse, be it drugs, women or collecting.” Like any addict, Arthur Sackler was always after his next fix. Serendipitously, he found it in the form of an Ancient Egyptian temple, which would serve as a small investment that would further fuel his art addiction.

The Temple of Dendur, Prior to Relocation to the Sackler Wing at The Metropolitan Museum of Art

The Temple of Dendur was originally located on the banks of the Nile. Built around 12BC, it had survived two World Wars, extreme heat, and the slow passing of time. When plans for a dam threatened the location of the archaeological site, the US donated millions as part of a ‘diplomatic’ exchange: America would fund the dam and Abdel el Sawy, an Egyptian official, would oversee the move of the Temple to the US. Former President Eisenhower oversaw efforts by The Guggenheim, Smithsonian, Museum of Natural History and The Met to acquire the Temple. Director of The Met, James Rorimer, hoped that a successful bid would solve two looming problems facing the museum: 1) secure funding to modernise the museum; 2) secure a historical art collection large enough to protect the financial future of the museum. 

Fortunately for Rorimer, the Sackler brothers had a personal fortune large enough to impress Eisenhower with a proposed museum extension to house the Temple. “Innovative, showy, and a little bit shady”, Arthur Sackler’s negotiating skills secured a deal with The Met that ensured the Temple would be relocated to ‘The Sackler Wing’. It would also provide some personal benefits in exchange for what would later be described as a “gracious gesture.” The deal secured The Met $150,000 worth of funding. In return, Arthur would buy all the Asian art the museum had collected for the purchased price and then “re-gift” the collection under the pretence Sackler had actually donated the art. If that wasn’t enough, Arthur would also get private access to a secure storeroom for his personal art collection that only himself and his art advisor, Paul Singer, would be able to access. 

Was The Met deal a happy coincidence or a scheme devised with larger vices at play? “Indeed, Arthur Sackler hardly stands alone as a rich person buying “indulgences””. A federal investigation drew blanks on the shady deal. Regardless, it was conducted ten years after the Temple was reconstructed. Was Rorimer stupid for accepting such a one-sided deal? Not exactly. His agreement with the Sackler’s ensured The Met’s financial security for the foreseeable future. The only unforeseen aspect was Rorimer’s untimely death. Arthur’s collection was rehoused at the Smithsonian in Washington DC. And until 2021, The Sackler’s name still hung over the door leading to the Temple of Dendur. 

The Sackler Wing (prior to it’s name change) at The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Many of Sackler’s successes were derived from luck. Most notably (and perhaps, unfortunately) was the development of OxyContin. Beginning in the mid-90s (although Empire of Pain dates the creation of OxyContin as early as the late 80s), the painkiller was hailed as being revolutionary for curing chronic pain. A more potent form of the drug MS Contin (derived from the morphine family) OxyContin was recommended and prescribed for everything from joint and back pain to cancer treatments. Keefe details how one consultant was issuing up to 1000mg of OxyContin to their patients every day, an abundance so excessive it’s no wonder people became addicted. Having pitched the drug to the FDA and medical professionals as being no more addictive than MS Contin, despite being more potent and derived from oxycodone (a cousin of the street drug heroin), the Sackler’s geared up their efforts to falsely advertise deadly prescriptive drugs for profit. Bringing in over $1 billion worth of profit in its first few years on the market, Purdue Pharma’s advertising campaign ramped up OxyContin’s effectiveness.  

The Sackler Center for Arts Education at The Guggenheim Museum, NY. 

An increase in ‘generosity’ to the arts correlated with OxyContin’s economic success. The Guggenheim, home to the Sackler Centre for Arts Education’s, received approximately $7 million in “gifts’ from the Sackler’s between 1999 and 2006, on top of $2 million in additional donations. In 2019, artist Nan Goldin (a former opioid addict herself) held a protest at the Guggenheim for accepting donations from the Sackler’s through the late 90s and early 2000s. She also held a protest at the Sackler Wing in The Met, holding a ‘die-in’ and leaving hundreds of empty pill bottles in the fountain. “OxyContin: Prescribed to you by the Sacklers.” They were, as Keefe describes, “their own modest...little pieces of art.” And although both museums have stated they have not received any donations since the allegations emerged, it begs the question: why did they accept the donations in the first place?

One explanation is that in the 1990s, the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) was at risk of being cut back and eliminated by conservative politicians who believed the organisation was funding artists, exhibitions, and museums that promoted leftists liberal messages. The organisation funded everything from art projects to exhibitions at well-known cultural education establishments. Eventually, the department was saved but museums suffered at the hands of conservative ideas and values. Exhibitions were boycotted for promoting Anti-American values (including the infamous flag burning by Dread Scott), which were only further spurred on by government officials supporting the censorship of such artwork. It seems almost contradictory that big pharmaceutical companies, a branch of the economy usually affiliated with conservative values and groups, were praised for stepping in and saving museums. Like their marketing strategies, Purdue had their philanthropic approach nailed to a tee. They could donate money to a good cause keeping the public on their side whilst pleasing Republican officials by aligning with their political-economic values. 

Nan Goldin, “P.A.I.N. Protest at The Met’.

The ‘American Dream’ persona embodied by the original big three (Arthur, Mortimer and Raymond) seems more like a nightmare for the current generation of Sackler entrepreneurs. Any pretence of being the self-made children of immigrants has been drowned out by lawsuits and judgements ruling that they are undisputedly the creators and promoters of OxyContin. The road ahead is far from smooth for any party involved. 

In 2020, it appeared a deal had been settled until a judge overturned it because the previous court had acted outside its remit concerning the proposed Bankruptcy Code Purdue Pharma had filed for. The deal included the Sackler family renouncing its ownership of the company, contributing $4.5 billion in cash and assets to a value of $10 billion, and the oversight of the creation of new anti-addiction medication development, in exchange for what would essentially be legal immunity from federal lawsuits. Importantly, they’d also promised not to lend their name to any museum for the next decade, claiming they’d “pass the torch” to others hoping to donate. The position it puts museums and galleries in to sort out the issue of donated money, gifts, and named rooms and galleries is especially problematic. Furthermore, as outlined in the same press release by a Sackler spokesperson, “the earliest of these gifts were made almost 30 years ago.” How do museums atone for such longstanding relationships with a family and corporation that’s always been controversial but has only recently been publicly vilified? And museums can’t actually return the money they’ve spent, so is any positive change purely ‘superficial’?

So, what are museums doing? For some, that is literally the million-dollar question. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Louvre in Paris, and the Smithsonian are amongst some of the most prominent institutions in the art world who stated they will no longer accept donations from the Sackler family, with cries to keep the ‘Sackler’ name in rooms and wings at these cultural hubs, as a reminder of “human greed”. The Royal Academy elected to keep the Sackler name because it was from a different branch of the Sackler family. The divide emerging in the art world, highlighted by Nan Goldin’s protests and the indecisiveness to act on such donations, illustrates the problem museums and art houses find themselves in. The Royal Academy’s statement summarises the crux of the problem clearly: “The RA is an independent charity and does not receive government funding.”

The Sackler Gallery at The Royal Academy of Arts, London

What the Sackler’s did was fundamentally wrong. There’s no other way to see it.

Over half a million Americans have died. And that’s just the ones recorded. More have turned to the use of hard drugs like heroin, lost their homes, jobs and loved ones to OxyContin (and by association, Fentanyl). And to that effect, it’s why I find it so difficult to justify the vilification of art establishments and museums. Politics and history have proven that more often than not, the austerity of governments causes museums to turn to billionaires and private funding. The struggle museums now face is accountability.

I recently visited The National Art Gallery in London, which has announced its rejection of a £1 million grant from the Sackler family. I remember seeing The Sackler Room embossed in gold around the covings of a long rectangular room, filled with Gainsborough paintings (some may even recognise the room from the acclaimed Bond film, Skyfall). The name held no significance to me then. And I’m sure much of the British public, who have witnessed only a handful of healthcare scandals over the past few decades, seeing a name like ‘Sackler’ embossed in gold on a wall is nothing more to them than another name in a story about a corrupt pharmaceutical company in America. I believe museums should keep any name or funding associated with the Sackler’s. Museums are responsible for educating the public about history, culture, and society. And by extension, all the good and evil that comes with it. In erasing this history, I fear there’s a risk of neglecting and forgetting the extent and abuse of power Purdue Pharma inflicted on millions of families and individuals. Handing the power of knowledge back into public hands prevents companies like Purdue Pharma from exploiting vulnerable individuals. Learning and remembering mean people don’t forget.

Financially, coming from an impoverished area and studying whilst a government continuously cuts funding to art education programmes and institutions has meant I deeply value museums and galleries. I understand the risks of history being erased, forgotten, or changed because an authority deems it irrelevant. Public funding should be used to maintain access to history because it’s our history. Museums serve the public; they help educate. It should be up to the government, a democratically elected institution that can be held accountable for its actions, to fund public initiatives like museums and galleries. Museums have a fundamental duty of care in telling history how it happened; I am not saying they should struggle financially by refusing private donations. Merely, museums and galleries should be transparent but thorough in who they accept help off. The Sackler’s are facing their day of judgement, and museums hold the power to show people that with time comes healing. History, art and everything that goes along with it belong to the public, not a wealthy minority. 

The Sackler Room at The National Art Gallery, London