Fast
food contains an "alarming" amount of potentially toxic industrial
chemicals like phthalates, according to a new study that links high fast-food
consumption with increased levels of the harmful, non-natural substances.
People
who said they consumed more fast food were exposed to higher levels of
phthalates – chemicals found in processed foods and consumer-product packaging
that have been linked to infertility, especially in males – according to researchers
at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health.
"People
who ate the most fast food had phthalate levels that were as much as 40 percent
higher," said study lead author Ami Zota, an assistant professor of
environmental and occupational health at Milken Institute SPH. "Our
findings raise concerns because phthalates have been linked to a number of
serious health problems in children and adults."
The
researchers gathered data from federal nutrition surveys taken by about 9,000
people between the years 2003 and 2010. The surveys detailed diet choices in
the previous 24 hours, as well as results of concurrently gathered urine
samples. The researchers found that one-third of the subjects reported
consuming fast food in the 24 hours prior to the urine samples. Those
participants tended to show much higher levels of two phthalates, DEHP and
DiNP.
Zota
and the research team found that the more fast food consumed, the higher the
exposure to phthalates. Those consuming the most fast food showed 23.8 percent
more DEHP in their urine, and nearly 40 percent more DiNP metabolites compared
to those who did not consume fast food in the previous 24 hours.
Grain
and meat items were the top contributors to phthalate exposure, the researchers
found.
"We're
not trying to create paranoia or anxiety, but I do think our findings are
alarming," said Zota, according to the
Washington Post. "It's not every day that you conduct a study where
the results are this strong."
DEHP
and DiNP are used in a variety of products and packaging, including cosmetic
items and toys. Used in industrial food production, they can leach into
consumable substances. DEHP exposure has been linked to diabetes, allergies in children, and negative child behavior, among other
conditions. In 2008, some phthalates, including DEHP, were
banned in the US for the production of children's toys.
"Phthalates
are chemical plasticizers that are often used in the production of many types
of plastics," the US Consumer Product Safety Commission says. "Phthalates
most often, but not always, are used to make plastics softer and/or more
pliable."
Zota
said the the study took into account the participants' background and other
factors that could have exacerbated the findings.
"We
looked at it in so many different ways, and the effect still
remains," said Zota.
The
study did not find that high fast-food intake was associated with increased
levels of BPA (bisphenol-A), a chemical used in plastic food packaging. Yet the
study did find that participants who ate fast-food meat products had higher
levels of BPA than those who did not eat fast food.
"I
really hope this study helps raise public awareness about the exposure problems
caused by our industrialized food system," said Zota.
The
findings were published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
Editorial
END THE BLOCKADE
The
illegal and inhumane blockage imposed on Cuba by the United States of America
(USA) is still in place, 55 years on and after Barack Obama restored diplomatic
relations between the two countries.
The
blockade affects the country in importation of essential drugs, medical
equipment, transport, commence and many other areas.
Indeed,
the blockade is for the sole purpose of bullying the Cuban people and
Government into abandoning their chosen path to economic and political
development.
It
is strange that after 55 years, the political elite in the USA can still not
understand that the people of Cuba cannot be bullied.
The
Insight calls on all progressives throughout the world to intensify their
solidarity with Cuba in the effort to dismantle the blockade.
The
blockade is illegal and immoral and it must go!
Free SHS likely to
fail – IMANI
By Mohammed Awal
Government’s
plan to implement a Free Senior High School policy from September is likely to
face some challenges due to the country’s wobbling financial status, the Head
of Economics at IMANI, Patrick Stephenson has warned.
President
Akufo-Addo over the weekend disclosed that his government’s plan to fully
implement its much touted campaign promise is on course.
“By
free SHS, we mean that, in addition to tuition which is already free, there
will be no admission fees, no library fees, no science centre fees, no computer
lab fees, no examination fees, no utility fees; there will be free textbooks,
free boarding and free meals, and day students will get a meal at school for
free,” the President stated over the weekend.
Speaking
in the aftermath of the president’s declaration, Mr. Stephenson challenged the
government to disclose the source of funding for the implementation of the
programme.
He
said without a comprehensive funding mechanism, the programme is likely to
fail.
“The
way we had talked about the whole free senior higher education and how it’s
going to be implemented, the idea itself may not be a problem, but how we
should treat it within the structure of the educational system as we speak
today so that the targeted persons get to benefit,” he told Accra-based Citi
FM.
“I
think that’s been the problem to the extent that we have not seen sufficient
clarity from the current government, is making it very difficult to appreciate
what the intended objectives are.”
Source:StarrFMonline
2,000 VISITORS AT
FIDEL’S GRAVE EVERYDAY
 |
| Commandante Fidel Castro |
The
world does not seem to have had enough of Cuba’s revolutionary leader,
Commandante Fidel Castro who died on the 25th of November 2016.
Yudy
García Delís, Supervisor of the Santa Ifigenia Cemetery, where a huge rock
containing the ashes of Fidel is found has released exciting figures that
reveal that more than 2000 visitors visit the cemetery every day since it was
opened to the public on the 4th of December last year, to pay their
homage to the Commandante.
International
visitors from the United States, Canada, Russia, Japan, Africa and many Latin
American countries, have gone to the cemetery to testify of Fidel's greatness
and his contribution to the world's just causes, Martha Hernández Cobas from
the City Conservator's Office has reported.
Among
the most recent of the 30,000 visitors was a delegation from the Judicial
Federation of Argentina carrying a flag dedicated to the undefeated Comandante;
a group of Italian supporters of the Revolution; and several Iranian friends
who read a poem at the grave.
The
Santa Ifigenia Cemetery also holds the mausoleum of Cuba’s national hero Jose’
Marti, with whom Fidel Castro identified so strongly.
No
doubt! Fidel has caught the heart and mind of the world indeed!
The
Nat Turners of the 21st century
 |
| Nat Turner |
By Ama
Biney
The
new film on the former slave, Nat Turner, whilst deeply flawed should inspire
people to find out more about this historical heroic figure, beyond populist
narratives. More importantly, his legacy of revolt should inspire the
generation of Black Lives Matter to struggle against new forms of domination in
our capitalist, imperialist white supremacist patriarchal world.
In
1967 William Styron, a white Virginian
published his novel entitled “The Confessions of Nat Turner” which caused a
firestorm amongst black intellectuals for the manner
in which it portrayed the historical figure of Nat Turner, who led a slave
uprising in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831. Styron portrayed Nat Turner
as a depraved fanatical sex-craved creature. Nat Turner was wholly devoid of
political and religious motivations and lusted after white women. Nate Parker’s
film, “The Birth of a Nation” which depicts the famous slave revolt also caused
controversy when it came out in the US in October 2016 and in London in early
December.
It
received a standing ovation at the Sundance Film Festival where it won the
Grand Jury Prize and the Audience Award. Soon after, Fox Searchlight purchased
the film for $17.5 million. Nate Parker is a gifted actor who directed,
produced, co-wrote and played the lead role in the movie. Moreover, in August
this year he was dogged by controversy during the height of his publicity tour
to promote the film. As Parker went on tour the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite went
viral, which some anticipated could help the fortunes of the film to win an
Oscar.
However,
voices on social media vociferously boycotted the film on account of the fact
that in October 1999 a 19-year-old Nate Parker, with his roommate Jean Celestin
of the same age, were both accused of raping an 18 year old white female
student at
Penn State University. In 2001 Parker was acquitted of the crime and Celestin
was given a two-year sentence for sexual assault that was eventually
overturned. In 2012, the 30-year-old woman committed suicide.
A
candlelit vigil was held outside the ArcLight Cinema in Hollywood in
mid-October during the first public screening of the film by the group called “Fuck Rape Culture.” The group issued a
statement that helped cast a shadow over the film and particularly its
director, Nate Parker. It said: “FRC recognizes the need to hold space for
those celebrating the advancement of people of color in Hollywood while
continuing to fight for the victims of sexual assault and rape around the
world.”
Parker
was besieged with a barrage of questions and demands for accountability during
his promotional tour that many believe he handled with deflection. In August
2016 Parker maintained his innocence and stated on Facebook in relation to
the alleged crime and victim: “I see now that I may not have shown enough
empathy even as I fought to clear my name.”
Exacerbating
the controversy around Parker is also his depiction of women in the film (a
point, I will return to shortly).
Overall,
there is a divide between those who are pro- and those who are anti- the movie
as a result of the controversy surrounding its director and Jean Celestin, who
assisted Parker in co-writing and developing the film.
Historical
inaccuracies
Whilst
the acting was excellent, particularly of Nate Parker and Aga Naomi King (respectively
as Nat Turner and Turner’s wife, Cherry), in the light of considerable
historical work on Nat Turner, the film is grossly historically inaccurate. As
the writer-director, Nate Parker should have prefaced the film with the words:
“While Nat Turner’s revolt was a true event, I have taken creative license with
some aspects of the plot.” Instead at the beginning of the film there are some
vague misleading words that state that the film is based on true events.
Leslie Alexander, an African American
historian points out that Parker failed miserably in his mission to maintain “historical fidelity in his depiction
of the leader of the rebellion.” She correctly argues that the film “contains only a smidgen of historical
fact.”
Firstly,
nowhere in the film is there a depiction of Nat Turner being interviewed by
Thomas R. Gray after his arrest on October 30, 1831 whilst in Southampton
County prison. Gray was a Southern physician and lawyer who interviewed Turner
as he awaited trial. It is this most significant interview that was published
by Gray in 1831 as The Confessions of Nat Turner, that could have
assisted Parker to frame the story line and give the film some valid historical
authenticity and fidelity.
Whilst
there are debates as to the extent to which Gray could have doctored Turner’s
words, there is in The Confessions of Nat Turner several
parenthetical and editorial comments made by Gray that distinguish Gray’s voice
from that of Turner’s. During this trial Turner publicly endorsed Gray’s work
as faithfully representing his confessions.
The
Confessions of Nat Turner remains an important document for, as the
historian Patrick H. Breen states, “Few sources provide access to the minds of
slaves, let alone the mind of a man who may be the most famous American to live
and die in slavery” (p. 169)
Surely,
a scene in which Nat Turner narrates to Thomas Gray some of the influences on
his life, why he was motivated by divine voices to fulfil his dream to liberate
his people would have allowed Parker to remain faithful to the historical
record that he claims he aspired to? This was a huge failure of Parker. A scene
in which Nat Turner is interviewed by Thomas Gray would have given us further
insight into the inner mind, motivations and values of Nat Turner which would
have been based on the true historical fact that Nat Turner did in fact confess
to his actions and went to his executioner with absolutely no regrets
whatsoever. Imprisoned, Turner tells Gray, “I am here loaded with chains, and
willing to suffer the fate that awaits me.”
Second,
among the many flaws in the film, is that Turner did not kill his master,
Samuel Turner. Nat Turner had a number of owners and the owner that was killed
was a Joseph Travis. Even in the killing of Travis, if Nate Parker had read The
Confessions of Nat Turner, in the narration Nat Turner himself declared
that on entering his master’s house armed with a hatchet: “accompanied by Will
[a co-conspirator], I could not give a death blow, the hatchet glanced from his
head, he sprang from the bed and called his wife, it was his last word. Will
laid him dead, with a blow of his axe, and Mrs Travis shared the same fate, as
she lay in bed.”[4] Nat Turner confessed to Thomas Gray that he killed the
young teenager Margaret Whitehead “by a blow on the head, with a fence rail.”
Third,
whilst rape of enslaved women was intrinsic to the horrors of slavery, there is
no historical evidence that Nat Turner’s wife was raped by slave patrollers as
depicted in the film. More importantly, how many people who see or have seen
the movie will leave the cinema believing this to be a historical fact and
therefore a critical factor in Nat’s Turner radicalisation that led to
insurrection? The reality is, Nat Turner was prepared to die because he was
motivated by the unshakeable political and religious belief that as a
God-fearing Black man he and all Black people had a right to be free.
In
addition to this, how Parker depicts the rape of Cherry (Nat Turner’s wife) and
that of Esther, another enslaved woman (played by Gabrielle Union) is grossly problematic.
Esther is voiceless. It appears that in the film Nat Turner seeks to save the
women around him and is emasculated in doing so. In the view of Leslie Alexander, “the rape storyline
is carefully constructed to redeem Black masculinity at Black women’s expense.”
Or is the rape storyline calculated on the part of Parker in order to redeem
himself in the lingering shadow of the 1999 allegations against him, whereby
Parker can project love and empathy for the character of Cherry but failed to
do so for the real-life victim who he was acquitted of raping?
The
only small redeeming act on the part of one of the female characters that we
see in the film is when Nat Turner’s grandmother faces the white slave
patroller who is looking for Nat Turner’s father. The slave patroller stands on
a floor board that allows a stolen jar to roll from under his foot and the
grandmother’s quick witted action dictates she throw herself at the feet of the
white man to conceal this stolen jar. Her action shows her dissembling, which
many slaves cultivated to an art in order to survive life under the control of
whites. Her feigned contrition as she retrieved the jar in her long flowing
skirts saves her and the young Nat from the prospect of further verbal or
physical abuse from the white patroller.
Fourth,
there is no historical evidence that Nat Turner convinced his master, Samuel
Turner, to buy the enslaved woman Cherry, who later in the film was to become
his wife. This storyline is likely to be the fanciful imagination of the film
director.
Fifth,
the young Black boy who becomes a turncoat and betrays Nat Turner and his small
band of insurrectionists is a falsification of history. Turner who had a bounty
of $500 on his head [6] (that was later increased to a thousand) was eventually
captured after six weeks of being a fugitive. He confesses: “I know not how
long I might have led this life, if accident had not betrayed me, a dog in the
neighbourhood passing by my hiding place one night while I was out, was
attracted by some meat I had in my cave, and crawled in and stole it, and was
coming out just as I returned.” The dog barked and two slaves saw Nat Turner
and fled. Turner was aware that the two slaves would betray him and therefore
he was forced to find a new hideout “under the top of a fallen tree.” Two weeks
later, he was discovered by Mr Benjamin Phipps who was taking a walk across
farmland and saw the overturned pine tree under which Turner hid.[10] Phipps
tied up his prisoner who was to be taken to the Southampton County prison.
The
historical reality is that the revolt failed not because Turner was betrayed
but that Turner’s band of men, who amounted to no more than between 60- 80 men,
were in reality not only poorly equipped (initially with axes, clubs and later
rifles) but his group of men were ill-disciplined and fell into disarray,
drunkenness and confusion as they moved from plantation to plantation killing
all whites – men, women and children. Their aim was to get to the town of
Jerusalem – a few miles away, to capture the cache of arms, but they were
stopped in their tracks by the whites. Turner’s men had not moved as rapidly
and mobilised as effectively as they should have and therefore alarm had spread
among the whites. However as the historian Herbert Aptheker points out, “…had
Nat Turner been successful in capturing Jerusalem, with its arms and
ammunition, he might have prolonged the conflict for many days; perhaps, with
guerrilla warfare, for weeks.”
Dilemmas and tensions
of art and history
History
is a narrative that is often told from varied and conflicting ideological
visions and perspectives. Tensions arise between historians on what are the
facts, sequence of events and interpretations of events within the prevailing
socio-political and economic contexts in which the past occurred. There is also
a long-standing tension between art (i.e. creative writing, film making, etc.)
and history in terms of to what extent should filmmakers and novelists remain
faithful to the historical record and/or engage in literary and creative
imagination? If they do engage in unleashing their creative imaginations,
should novelists and filmmakers not openly tell us they are inspired by
historical acts/events and depart from the historical interpretation into their
own imaginations? Or is “historical fidelity” paramount?
I
appreciate the power of film to reach far wider audiences than a mere academic
history book could ever wish for. Film and novels have a power to evoke
understanding and a spirit of the times in a manner terse abstract historical
jargon and description often fails to do.
In
our society and world that forever seeks to simplify complex realities in a
“dumbing down,” popular and populist films on which millions have been spent
may not stimulate ordinary people to seek to find out more about Nat Turner and
be inspired to read a little of the copious amounts that have written on him,
nor seek to find out the truth about what really happened during the revolt and
why it failed. How many audience viewers will leave the cinema and be inspired
to dig further into history and read The Confessions of Nat Turner or
any book on Nat Turner?
A
filmmaker claiming “historical fidelity in his depiction
of the leader of the rebellion,”(i.e. of Nat Turner) should be judged
on whether he (or she) has lived up to this noble aspiration or not. Sadly, Nate
Parker does not fulfil this aspiration.
Ultimately,
Roxane Gay, the feminist writer and professor, succinctly captures the position
of some who decided not to see the film. In her piece in The New York Times
entitled “Nate Parker and the Limits of Empathy,” she writes:
“As
the movie’s publicity machine roars to life in advance of the October release,
there is renewed interest in Mr. Parker and his history with sexual assault.
There are renewed questions about whether we can or should separate the artist
from his art. I am reminded that I cannot. I cannot separate the art and the
artist, just as I cannot separate my Blackness and my continuing desire for
more representation of the Black experience in film from my womanhood, my
feminism, my own history of sexual violence, my humanity.”
For
some of us the prism of how we view the film is predetermined by the actions
and words of the filmmaker both on screen and off screen because the personal
is political. There can be no separation between the two. In separating the
two, we have a distorted understanding and analysis of the filmmaker, ourselves
and the world.
Nat Turners of the
21st century
Nate
Parker deliberately gave the film the title of D. W. Griffith’s silent film,
“The Birth of a Nation”, which portrays the racist Ku Klux Klan as a heroic
force. Certainly, for white liberals Nat Turner’s rebellion was part of the
long tortuous and brutal birth of a new American nation in which slavery, Jim
Crow, segregation were to become relics of the past. However, in the
21st century new manifestations of “colour blind racism” as Dr Eduardo Bonilla-Silva cogently
argues in his book entitled “Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the
Persistence of Racial Inequality in America” (2013), have become the reality.
Covert racism or “new racism” has replaced the more overt forms of the atrocities
of chattel slavery and segregation. Instead of lynchings and beatings, Black
people in both the UK and US are open season for police killings and
institutional racism that has led to death at the hands of mental health
systems, prisons and police stations.
The
rebellion that Nat Turner set in motion – though short-lived and small-scale,
created a deep-seated panic and fear among southern whites that remained for
decades – and some would argue, that, that specific fear and white supremacist
attitude remains among some whites in the US (and elsewhere) today. Nat Turner
in the history of African American and Pan-African history is part of the
continuum of resistance of people of African descent. His life and actions need
to be known by people of African descent and all progressive individuals as a
life that stood in opposition to domination and injustice.
Nat
Turner was only 31 years old when he was hanged. He was therefore a young man,
just like the millions of young men and women involved in the civil rights
movement, the anti-colonial struggles in Africa, and the millions involved in
the present day Black Lives Movement. There is a historical umbilical cord of
struggle that links Nat Turner to the lynching of 14-year-old Emmett Till in August 1955,
as well as to the lives and conditions of people of African descent today, for
we remain engaged in a struggle for economic, social and political justice
whether in the US, UK or in Africa. We continue to struggle demanding justice
for the Mario Woods, Trayvon Martins, Michael Browns, Sandra Blands, Stephen Lawrences, Jermaine Bakers and numerous
other Black women and men killed in a white supremacist society that sees no
justice for these modern day lynchings. People of African descent continue to
struggle for reparations; for recognition that our bodies and lives be
respected; that our dignity and humanity be respected no less than it should be
for any other human being.
Will
the emergence of President-elect Donald Trump who will take office in January
2017 produce new Nat Turners in the 21st century? The great
19th century abolitionist Frederick Douglass once remarked: “Power
concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
Douglass also said: “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.”
As
the 21st century continues to unfold there needs to be new embodiments of
Nat Turners seeking to overturn the system of capitalist, imperialist white
supremacist patriarchy. And there needs to be the equivalent Sojourner Truths,
Harriet Tubmans, Yaa Asantewas, Mekatilili wa Menzas and Nzingas
alongside the future Nat Turners.
*
Dr Ama Biney is a historian and political scientist living in the U.K. She can
be contacted at ama@fahamu.org
US Blockade Against
Cuba Still in Place 55 Years Later
Cuban President Raul
Castro said during Barack Obama's visit to the island that the blockade must
end. | Photo: Reuters
After acknowledging that bullying Cuba for decades proved
to be a bad and losing strategy, the U.S. changed course, but not entirely.
Many
believe since U.S. and Cuba restored diplomatic relations, the blockade imposed
on Cuba by the U.S. is over, but 55 years later, it remains in place.
But despite this economic blockade and an international campaign by the U.S. to isolate Cuba from the world arena by trying to deny it health equipment, financial transactions, and even cultural performances and sports competitions, the socialist nation has kept its head high and shown the world it can advance no matter what the obstacles.
After
acknowledging that bullying Cuba for decades proved to be a bad and losing
strategy and that, in fact, it had turned Latin America against the U.S.,
former President Barack Obama decided to announce a change in policy,
reestablishing relations.
It
was historic — well, sort of. International media had its story: U.S. citizens
could now buy Cuban cigars and rum and bring them back home.
But,
unfortunately, for the Cuban people, the blockade is far from over.
What did change?
During
the last part of his second term in office, Obama announced he had begun
negotiations with the Cuban government to reestablish diplomatic ties and begin
the path to normalizing relations between the two countries.
The
first step was easing travel restrictions for U.S. citizens by setting up a
system of licenses under 12 categories that would allow those who met certain
qualifications travel to Cuba, but many restrictions remained.
The
government also reestablished commercial flights and allowed cruise ships to
land in the island's harbors. Tourists were no longer limited to only taking
US$100 worth of Cuban cigars and rum back to the U.S.
Acknowledging
Cuba’s top cancer research institutes, the U.S. also deregulated joint medical
investigation and cooperation.
Then
came the opening of an embassy in each country's capital in 2014, the Cuban
office in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. one in Havana.
By
2016, the State Department removed Cuba from a list of states that sponsor
terrorism, where it had found itself since 1982.
The
Department of Homeland Security ended the so-called 'Wet-foot/Dry-foot'
immigration policy in January 2017, which was put in place more than 20 years
ago. The Cuban government always maintained it was a provocation, encouraging
illegal and risky migration by water and demanded its repeal.
The
policy allowed only Cubans — no one else from any other country — who reach
U.S. soil an expedited legal permanent residency and eventual U.S. citizenship.
What
stayed the same?
The
blockade. The blockade remains intact.
A
picture of Obama in 2016 in a historic visit to Havana, in front of the famous
Che Guevara portrait at Revolution Plaza, wasn’t enough to ensure Cubans that
the hostile blockade would be lifted.
Obama
assured Cuban President Raul Castro that the blockade would be lifted, but
didn’t specify a timeline of when that might happen. Raul made it very clear
that relations could never be normal until the U.S. ended the blockade, the
largest commercial blockade in modern history.
Cuba
has also called time and again on the U.S. to return the naval-occupied
territory of Guantanamo to the island and to respect Cuban sovereignty by
halting all funding of anti-government groups and other organizations.
But
then, at the end of 2016, Obama renewed the U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act,
extending the blockade against Cuba for another year.
Under
the current foreign policy in the U.S., Cuba can’t export or import from the
U.S. Even if the island does acquire a permit to buy anything, the country is
obligated to pay in advance and only in cash, in a different currency than
dollars, and through bank institution from other countries.
Medicine
imports are conditioned, Cuba needs to specifically detail the final
destination of medicine acquired, and once again it has to be done through
third countries and in another currency.
U.S.
companies that export machinery and equipment, services, or technical
information that are key to providing drinking water for Cubans and equipping
hospitals are also prohibited from doing business with Cuba.
The
U.S. went even further and prohibited and threatened to sanction third
countries if they sold products or services to the islands.
Several
professional players and sports team have denounced barriers imposed by the
U.S. government against their participation in seminars, competitions, and
practices on U.S. soil.
U.S.
citizens still cannot use U.S. credit and debit cards while on the island and
U.S. banks cannot carry out any transactions to and from Cuba. The U.S.
continues to limit the amount of money that individuals in the U.S. can send to
families living in Cuba.
According
to a report given by the Cuban government at the U.N. General Assembly, the
U.S. blockade costs the island nation US$4.7 billion in 2016 and a staggering
US$753.7 since it began almost six decades ago.
At
the U.N. General Assembly, 191 of the 193 of the nations voted to condemn the
blockade in 2016, as the majority have done for several decades. The difference
in 2016 being that the U.S. and Israel abstained from voting for the first time
since both nations have continuously voted against it.
Now
with the Trump administration overturning many Obama-era acts, the likelihood
of any more concessions from the U.S. are unlikely.
Rex
Tillerson, the newly appointed secretary of state and former ExxonMobil chief
executive, said that he would reverse, or comprehensively review, Obama’s
executive orders. The Republican majority in congress will most likely follow
suit.
The
international struggle will continue regardless, to finally end to what many
world leaders have called a “criminal blockade.”
THE FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES
(or is Adidas cooler than Nike?)
(or is Adidas cooler than Nike?)
 |
| Karl Marx |
The
Socialist Party must as a scientific organisation constantly re-examine its
principles and practice. I intend to re-examine a small part of Marx’s Das
Kapital (published in 1867). This is a mere 12 pages long and is
entitled ‘The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof.’ I intend to
show:
1.
This is a major insight into how society operates;
2.
This fetishism explains many modern social developments;
3.
Why a non-commodity producing society is our goal.
Major
Insight
According
to The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, “fetish” is
of French derivation, first used in 1613 and defined as, “Any object
used by the Negroes of the Guinea coast and neighbourhood as an amulet or means
of enchantment, or regarded by them with dread.” and further, “Any
inanimate object worshipped by savages…”
A
fetishism is defined as, “The worship of fetishes, or the superstition
of which this is the feature.” Why did Marx use such a term for value
in a commodity-producing society? In his own words:
“There
it is a definite relation between men that assumes, in their eyes, the
fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an
analogy we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious
world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent
beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and
the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s
hands. This I call the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of
labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore
inseparable from the production of commodities.”
Marx
is here showing that what appears to be a relationship between things is in
fact a relationship between the producers of those things. Marx viewed
everything historically. For him the capitalist mode of production disguised
the value relationship so that it appears as a relationship between things
instead of between producers. In his own words:
“As
a general rule, articles of utility become commodities only because they are
products of the labour of private individuals or groups of individuals who
carry on their work independently of each other. The sum total of the labour of
all these private individuals forms the aggregate labour of society. It is only
by being exchanged that the products of labour acquire, as values, one uniform
social status, distinct from their varied form of existence as objects of
utility.”
For
Marx, capitalism was distinct from all previous modes of production because
wealth took the form of commodities. Articles that were produced and reproduced
for the purpose of sale or exchange on the market with a view to realising a
profit.
Previous
societies had produced commodities but inside capitalism commodity production
was the prevailing form of production. In order to analyse how capitalism
operated it was necessary for Marx to take an historical approach or, as he
writes:
“Man’s
reflection on the forms of social life, and consequently, also, his scientific
analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their
actual historical development. He begins, post festum, with the results of the
process of development ready to hand before him. The characters that stamp
products as commodities , and whose establishment is a necessary preliminary to
the circulation of commodities, have already acquired the stability of natural,
self-understood forms of social life, before man seeks to decipher, not their
historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning.”
With
the market economy of capitalism established, this circulation of commodities
does indeed seem to be “natural, self-understood” but behind
this apparent relationship between commodities what is actually being compared
is the abstract human labour embodied in these commodities.
Frederick
Engels in his book On Capital shows how in
pre-capitalist society the relationship was obviously one between producers and
not products:
“The
peasant of the Middle Ages therefore knew fairly accurately the labour time
requisite for producing the things he obtained by exchange. The blacksmith and
the wagoner worked in his sight, as did the tailor and she shoemaker who, in my
own youth, went from hut to hut among our Rhenish peasants making clothes and
shoes from home-made cloth and leather. Both the peasant and those he purchased
from were themselves labourers: the articles exchanged were the products of
their own labour.
What
did they expend to produce these objects? Labour and only labour; for the
replacement of working tools, for the production of raw material and for its
working up they expended nothing but their own labour power; how could they
then exchange these products otherwise than in proportion to the labour
expended on them? Not only was the labour time expended on these products the
sole appropriate measure for the quantitative determination of the magnitudes
involved in the exchange, but any other measure was unthinkable. Or does anyone
believe that the peasant and the artisan were so foolish as to exchange a thing
that took ten hours’ labour for something that took only one labour hour?”
Here
Engels explains how in a pre-capitalist economy the role of abstract human
labour was self-evident. In modern society with all the complexity of the
market this relationship is more difficult to grasp. Modern pundits talk glibly
about “the dictates of the market”, forgetting that markets are human products,
or possibly because they lack an historical view, not even knowing it.
Like
modern day savages human beings worship at the feet of capitalism’s markets,
while the high priests of Madison Avenue tell us we can only be truly human if
we consume the products that they are advertising. The sum total of human
possibility has been reduced to how many designer labels we can purchase, and
we are assured by the inner sanctums of Whitehall that the “invisible
hand of the market” deems this or that policy necessary. In 1998 the
worshippers of the fetishism of commodities are everywhere.
Modern
social developments
This
fetishism of commodities explains many modern developments. It touches every
human activity, even those apparently divorced from it. Sport, education, arts,
science and politics are affected by it. At present we have the World Cup
Tournament in France with 32 of the world’s best football teams competing, but
this is more than a sporting event. According to the American magazine ‘Adbusters’:
“But
the fiercest battle of all will be the one waged off the pitch between Stripes
and Swoosh, the boot wars between the sportswear manufacturers Nike and
Addidas.”
The
Adidas spokesman, Steve Martin, is quoted as saying:
“Youths
wear 75 to 80 per cent of our products for leisure, while only 20 to 25 per
cent wear it for sport. Sportswear sales have grown at a phenomenal rate in the
past five years. Football is the only truly global sport; control that and
you’ve got the cornerstone of a $30 billion global sportswear industry.”
If
any football supporter wondered why Brazil were playing all over the world
prior to the World Cup , here is the answer:
“For
the 1994 World Cup, held in the US, not one national team was sponsored by
Nike. In France it will have six, including World Champions and favourites,
Brazil, who’ve been signed on a ten-year deal for $400 million. Part of
Brazil’s deal requires them to play five matches a year for Nike, which the
company promotes and owns the TV rights to.”
In
the USA sport is dominated by advertisers and manufacturers of commodities.
American football (grid-iron) is played on television around the advertising
slots and it is not difficult to see why. According to the San
FranciscoExaminer (18.1.98):
“Over
the eight years of a contract that will amount to at least $17.6 billion. Each
of the 30 NFL teams will get an average of at least $73.3 million; less at the
beginning, more at the end. This season they’re getting $40 million each from
television.”
Sport
in a pre-commodity society was a healthy, enjoyable pastime. Inside capitalism
it has become a vehicle for selling commodities.
When
we look at education, the pervasive influence of the commodity is even more
awful. Rather than engender a spirit of enquiry and wonder in the young,
capitalism sees only another potential market. In the same issue of the San
Francisco Examiner we learn of Channel One TV, owned by Whittle
Communications:
“Beaming
news and commercials into 12,000 of the nation’s secondary schools, the
programme reaches 8 million teenagers. In California, the telecast is delivered
to 180 schools. In return for broadcasting the Channel One program—broken up
into 10 minutes of news briefs and 2 minutes of flashy, MTV-style ads for
companies such as Pepsi and Reebok—schools receive free TV monitors for each
classroom, VCRs, satellite dishes and wires.”
The
exploitation of the classroom is not peculiar to the USA. McDonalds has got its
greasy paws on the kids in Britain. The Observer of
26.6.98 reports:
But
since 1993 the company has offered teachers in all schools ‘resource packs’
which could take the place of elusive, expensive textbooks. History, one pack
recommended, should be taught by getting the children to ‘explore the changes
in the use of McDonald’s site’. Music teachers were advised to encourage pupils
to ‘make up words for “Old McDonald had a store” to the tune of “Old
McDonaldhad a farm”. The
English pack includes such literary tasks as identifying the words “Chicken
McNuggets”.
Opera
doesn’t escape the dead hand of big business. The thinking seems to be that if
businessmen, the modern high priests of commodity worship, know about markets
then they must know about everything else. Commenting on the growing
involvement of capitalists with the arts, ‘The Observer’(18.1.98) reported:
“The
new and dominant values were vividly expressed in the withering words with
which Gerald Kaufman [in June 1998] forced the resignation of the entire board
of the Royal Opera House: ‘We’d prefer to see the House run by a philistine
with the requisite financial acumen than by the succession of opera and ballet
lovers who have brought this great and valuable institution to its knees.”
The
popular arts fare no better at the hands of the commodity worshipper. The same
paper commented on Hollywood’s thraldom to the fetishism. The production of the
film Godzilla cost about $120 million, but the marketing cost
an additional $60 million.
“Moreover,
Godzilla was released to such a monstrous flood of tie-ins—cameras from Kodak,
tortillas from Taco Bell, watches by Swatch and beer by Kirin—that Robert
Levin, Sony’s marketing chief, remarked: “We aren’t launching a movie, we’re
launching a franchise.”
It
is when we turn to the world of science that we find the commodity fetishism at
its most hellish. Here one would imagine is the one field of human endeavour
and achievement above the sordid cash nexus of capitalism. Alas, this is far
from the truth. More and more the perversion of commodity worship has distorted
the idea of a disinterested pursuit of knowledge. One of the world’s leading
geneticists, R.C. Lewontin, in his book The Doctrine of DNA,
explains the role of science in capitalism:
“Science
uses commodities and is part of the process of commodity production. Science
uses money. People earn their living by science, and as a consequence the
dominant social and economic forces in society determine to a large extent what
science does and how it does it.”
The
idea of disinterested devotees of science is knocked on the head by his further
disclosure about some of his fellow scientists:
“No
prominent molecular biologist of my acquaintance is without a financial stake
in the biotechnology business.”
Perhaps
the maddest example of commodity fetishism is reported in ‘Adbusters’ magazine,
where Pepsi Cola are reported as possibly seeking a copyright for the shade of
blue they use on their cola cans. This isn’t as unlikely as it seems:
“In
1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a colour can be registered as
a trademark provided there’s evidence that shows the colour has become
associated with a particular product.”
Nor
does Keith Hughes, the Pepsi Cola spokesperson, rule out their attempting to
copyright Pepsi Blue:
“We’re
reviewing the possibilities. We’ve got some exciting plans, but I couldn’t
really address that question at this point. I think we already do own that
colour of blue, in the beverage market anyhow.”
In
1848, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels saw how capitalism was turning once
revered human occupations into mere wage slaves; they stated in the Communist
Manifesto:
“The
bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and
looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the
priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage labourers.”
Prophetic
as these words were, it is unlikely that even Marx and Engels could have
imagined a statesman like Mikhail Gorbachev, head of state of the USSR, ending
up as the lackey of a western capitalist company. According to The
Guardian (5.12.97) he was a major world figure:
“Ten
years ago Mikhail Gorbachev was a name with which to move mountains. When he
spoke to the UN offering unprecedented troop cuts in Eastern Europe, this
newspaper’s Washington correspondent said that one could “almost feel the earth
shifting inside the building.”
So
there you are. A great man. What’s he doing now? Working for Pizza Hut! Not
serving behind the counter but advertising for them on television:
“Mr
Gorbachev will be paid more than £100,000 for the adverts, more than Pizza Hut
paid to Pamela Anderson.”
Our
Goal
Inside
a socialist society all wealth will be produced solely for use. There will be
no need for markets. Men and women will produce only use values. There will be
no need for the duplicity brought about by the insane worship at the shrine of
commodities. Education will be free of the hucksters and con men of advertising
and can become free to inform our children of all the wonders of the world.
Science
liberated from the market place can become humanity’s crowning achievement.
Sport can once again become an enjoyable, healthy pursuit. Dramatists, poets
and artists can depict the real world with all its natural beauty and portray
human existence in all its splendour and drama.
Best
of all, we can become fulfilled human beings, no longer mere consumers
worshipping commodities. We will not be blinded by the market system but able
to look at the world clear-eyed and clear-headed.
