Thursday, August 20, 2020

Now Is a Great Time to Go Back to an Old iPod

 
Now Is a Great Time to Go Back to an Old iPod

Fed up with streaming? You're not alone. And these days, there's a whole micro-economy of custom iPod options, whether you want a 2 terabyte hard drive or built-in Bluetooth.

BY JACK MOORE Gentleman's Quarterly

Last year, I spent five months in New York working on a TV show. I was lonely, and my preferred method for dealing with that loneliness was shopping online for shit that I didn’t need. One night, I found myself clicking around on eBay when a heavily used iPod caught my eye. The sight instantly filled me with that familiar mixture of joy and nostalgia that BuzzFeed spent the last decade weaponizing for traffic. I clicked “buy” and the iPod arrived about a week later.

Firing it up made me realize how much music, and the way we listen to it, had changed since I last had one of these guys in the mid-2000s. It was a bit of a headache to get the iPod up and running, but after I found the “purchase history” section of the iTunes Store, things started to come together. Soon I was able to get a few thousand songs onto this beat-up little gray rectangle. I ejected it from my computer, threw on some headphones, and fell backwards into bed and in time.

The first thing you have to know about listening to music on an iPod is that your primary action is always listening to music. That might sound obvious, maybe even trite, but after a decade of listening to music on smartphones, it felt refreshing to focus on one thing at a time again—to have a sense of containment. Sure, Spotify and Apple Music give you access to millions of songs whenever you want, but a buffet of infinite choices that seems appetizing in the abstract can in reality feel paralyzing. There’s just too much shit to choose from! Listening to something on the iPod, on the other hand, felt intentional—sort of like putting on a record. (I know.) Part of that had to do with the “inconvenience” of using it: Loading music is a whole process, and so, when faced with an active choice, I found myself listening to full albums front to back. (Maybe a few skips.) Unlike my phone, I didn’t feel the need to bounce from song to podcast to YouTube video to NBA highlights on Twitter. 

That mild, latent form of FOMO that comes whenever you’re doing something on a phone just wasn’t there. This is hardly a novel insight, but it isn’t a secret that our phones are reshaping our brain chemistries every second of every day, whether that’s getting a ping from a work email, or eight separate push notifications letting you know what the president tweeted, or your bank telling you that you just got paid. (And then your bank telling you that your credit card payment is due.) So on some level it felt good to resist that—to separate myself from the constant stream notifications that were scrambling my brain.

And a funny thing happened when the iPod became my primary form of engaging with music. Things slowed down, and I started to write down notes of albums I wanted to buy when I got home. I figured out how to disconnect Apple Music from my library to give me that old school iTunes experience (the key is turning off iCloud Music), and then found myself spending hours browsing the store. I’d have iTunes open in one window and YouTube open in another just so I could sample albums before deciding whether or not to buy them. I felt like I was back at Tower Records or Kim’s or Other Music in the village. Beyond the economic reasons, it feels good to purchase music (digital album sales are still not great for artists, but they’re worlds better than the percentage of a penny artists make per stream) and it also makes you feel more connected to your purchase. I was far less likely to bounce off an album after buying it, and in the process I ended up discovering deep cuts that I would have missed had I fired up Spotify.

Suddenly, the world of music blogs that used to consume so much of my Internet time were relevant again. I was an active participant in music, not just a passive recipient of whatever the algorithm decided to feed me. Weirdly, I even began to look forward to the act of obsessively adjusting metadata to keep my iTunes library organized. It was oddly meditative: Should Fiona Apple go in Singer/Songwriter or Rock or Alternative? (In fact, while we’re on the subject, where is the line between Rock and Alternative? Should it be based on what years something came out or is it more a question of vibe?)

I’m not alone either. These days there’s a whole iPod community on Reddit devoted to refurbs and customs, and soon enough I was hooked. I came across DankPods, an entertaining YouTuber who somehow modded his iPod to have more storage space than my 2019 MacBook Pro. Before long, my old beat-up eBay purchase with its slow hard-drive and feeble battery just didn’t seem like enough. I wound up on Etsy, where a shop run by a nice guy named Jim called PiratePTiPods sold custom-made iPods in different colors. He could mod them with up to 2 terabytes of fast storage and put in giant batteries that lasted a week. (All for pretty reasonable prices at that!) There are even people right now who are working to make iPods Bluetooth compatible. Still, there are a few wireless kinks to work out, so I haven’t taken the plunge yet, but I do have a small accessory that plugs into the bottom of the iPod and makes it work flawlessly with Airpods and car stereos. (I've even taken to giving iPods pre-loaded with a few songs to friends as gifts.)

Nostalgia can be seductive if you’re not careful, but the iPod was, I’d argue, a perfect middle point between music’s past and it’s all-streaming future. As of this writing, my main iPod (I ended up with three, whoops!) has 14,145 songs on it. That’s nothing compared to Spotify or Apple Music’s infinite libraries, but at this point in my life, I’d rather have a collection of music that I feel connected to than all the music in the world. 

 

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Locked Up in One Country and Released Into Another; Belarus


 “We Were Locked Up in One Country and Released Into Another”: Horror and Hope as Protests in Belarus Continue 

By Masha Gessen



On Sunday, hundreds of thousands of Belarusians took to the streets of Minsk and other cities in the largest protest yet against the dictatorship of Alexander Lukashenka, and the largest demonstrations in the history of the country. Lukashenka’s regime cracked down on protesters immediately following a rigged election a week earlier. The brutality of the state’s response not only failed to scare people into staying home but united them in protest. In the last few days, accounts of people who had been detained and released have been circulating online, as have photographs of people injured by stun grenades, bullets, and batons wielded by Lukashenka’s forces. Some of those who attended Sunday’s rally held up gruesome photographs of injuries. 

On the eve of Sunday’s protest, I spoke to a friend who had been released from prison the previous night. Svetlana Sugako, who is thirty-five, and her partner, Nadezhda Brodskaya, who is thirty-four, run the day-to-day operations of Belarus Free Theatre. The troupe, which has won acclaim in the West, performs in a secret location in Minsk when it’s not on tour; its founders have lived in exile for a decade. I got to know Svetlana and Nadezhda well when I was writing an essay about their life and work. We spent time together in Minsk, Melbourne, New York, Toronto, and Tampere, Finland. Now Svetlana was calling me from a relative’s apartment in Minsk. 

On the night of the vote, Svetlana and Nadezhda went to a polling place in central Minsk to look at local results. About fifty people were milling around waiting for the numbers. The women were sitting on a low wall when a special-forces police van pulled up. “The doors opened and people in black gear poured out,” Svetlana told me. “Most people ran away, but Nadia and I just kept sitting on the wall. They were looking at us like they couldn’t figure out why we weren’t running away. Then they said, ‘What are you doing sitting there? Let’s go.’ They took us to the van. There were already two people there, who had been observers at another polling place.” The van drove around for several hours—they could not know how long, because their captors had taken their phones—and picked up several more people. They then drove to a jail on Akrescina Street, away from the center of town. 

“There were fifteen or twenty of us by the time we got there,” Svetlana said. “They lined us up against the wall, facing the wall, hands behind your back. There was a lot of screaming and cursing. One by one, we had to go into a room where you had to strip completely, squat in that way you have to squat to show that you were not smuggling anything in, in front of a woman. Then there was a nurse who did a cursory checkup and wrote my name down on a register. I saw that I was around No. 40.” Once processed, twelve women captives were rushed down a hallway to their cell. “They were screaming, ‘Hands behind your back! Look down at the floor! Don’t you look at me, you bitch, you whore—faster, I said run faster.’ ” The twelve women were locked in an eight-person cell. Through the open window, they could hear prisoner transports arriving one after another. None of them slept that night, Svetlana said, because of the sounds of the jail. “The sound of nightsticks against bodies, screaming, the sound of sadists who have gained access to human flesh,” Svetlana said. “And then the sound of people being made to run up and down the stairs, the slamming of doors, the sound of people being thrown into cells.” She could hear men being beaten. Svetlana’s cellmates were terrified. They included a family—a woman in her early fifties and her two daughters, in their mid-twenties—who were arrested, along with the older woman’s husband, when they went to check the voting results at their local precinct; like all Belarusians, they had no internet connection that night. Their youngest cellmate was eighteen and the oldest was around seventy. Except for Svetlana, who had been arrested at a protest before, none had ever seen the inside of a jail. 

The following day was marked by absences. There was no food or water, and no formal charges or grounds for arrest presented to the inmates. More than twenty-four hours after they were detained, the women were taken out of their cell and told to sign a document that purported to describe the circumstances under which they were detained. “We heard people saying, ‘I was at a polling place,’ or ‘I was walking the dog,’ or ‘I was with my kids,’ and immediately the sound of blows, and you could hear that they are using their batons and, from their comments, that they are trying to impress each other with how hard they are hitting.” Svetlana couldn’t read what she was being asked to sign, because an officer covered the top part of the sheet with her hand. “I could see that the address and time of arrest were false,” she said. “So I wrote, ‘I do not certify.’ The woman officer started twisting my arms behind my back and made me kneel. She had some trouble getting me down to the floor, so she put me in a choke hold. I said, ‘You are going to strangle me now and will have to live with it on your conscience,’ and she loosened her grip. She then forced me to stand facing the wall, legs spread super-far apart. Then I was put back in a cell.” 

Later that day they were moved to a different cell. Svetlana, Nadezhda, their original cellmates, and twenty-four other women were now placed in a room meant for four people. It had a single window, which was open just a crack. There were two bunk beds and two tables, and women sat three to a bunk and six to a table—three on each side, with their backs to one another. The rest sat on the floor, some of them under the beds. One woman, who suffered from claustrophobia, kept battling panic attacks. Another, who was diabetic, kept asking for her medication, to no avail. A third fainted and was revived by an injection and a piece of bread. No one else had eaten. “We kept asking the guards to at least open the bean slot,” Svetlana said. “They’d open it for a few minutes and then shut it again. People started throwing up. After two women vomited one right after the other, I started screaming into the bean hole, ‘We are all going to croak here, and all you’ll have in the morning is a cell full of dead bodies!’ In response, they opened the door and threw a bucketful of cold water on us. This made things worse, because people’s clothes were now wet, as was the floor and some of the mattresses.” 

By the following morning, the inmates still had not had any food, and the only water available came from the tap in the cell; it smelled foul. They were once again taken out of their cell and marched up a flight of stairs, to a floor of offices where judges were conducting hasty hearings. “They lined us up against the wall again, then led me into an office,” Svetlana said. “The judge asked me, ‘Are you repentant?’ I said, ‘What am I supposed to repent for? I haven’t done anything, and I haven’t even read my booking document.’ She opened it and read it out loud, but I could tell that this was now a different document. It said that I’d taken part in an illegal mass protest and that I’d shouted ‘Stop the cockroach!’ and ‘Long live Belarus!’ And that I did all of this during the time when in fact I was already in a cell at this jail.” Svetlana told the judge what had really happened, and the judge appeared to listen sympathetically. Then she announced Svetlana’s sentence: ten days of arrest. 

Nadezhda got a different judge, who sentenced her to thirteen days. Then, in the confusion of screaming, stomping, and rubber-stamping, Nadezhda was led into another office, where another judge pulled another cookie-cutter case for her and sentenced her to six days. 

Following their appointments with judges, all thirty-six women were returned to their tiny cell. Several of them had told the judges about the conditions in which they were kept; Svetlana suspected that this was why, after around forty-eight hours in detention, the guards finally gave the women some yogurt and biscuits brought by supporters. (They had spent two days outside the jail trying to give food to inmates.) Otherwise, their third night was not much different from their second night: sleepless in an airless cell. 

The following morning, some of the women were taken out to the prison yard and lined up in rows facing along the wall, hands behind their backs. “Some girls thought that we’d been led out to be shot, and they appeared about to faint,” Svetlana said. “These women were allowed to sit down on the ground, as long as they kept their hands behind their backs and faced the wall.” Once the guards had lined up the female inmates—Svetlana estimated that they numbered between fifty and seventy-five—they started bringing male captives into the yard. “They were made to kneel, head down, face on the floor,” Svetlana said. Finally, all inmates were rushed into prisoner transports, twenty-four people in each. Svetlana and Nadezhda were now in separate vehicles. 

After a couple of hours, the transport arrived at a prison in the city of Žodzina, about thirty-five miles northeast of Minsk. The twenty-four inmates were taken to a courtyard, about twenty by twelve feet, covered with fencing, with a guard watching from above. “As was now our habit, we lined up, facing the wall, our hands behind our backs,” Svetlana said. “After a few minutes, a voice from behind the door said, ‘This is a courtyard for walks. Walk.’ We turned toward one another, and this was the moment we understood what had happened to us over the course of three days. Then the guard asked if we’d used the bathroom, and then they brought in a bucket that they set down in the corner so we’d have the option of peeing right there, in front of everyone, and this was pretty good, because we hadn’t had a chance to use the bathroom in a long time. Then they took us for processing, the strip search with the squatting again, and, as they were leading us out, we are running, head down, hands behind our backs, and the guard says, ‘Don’t rush, girls—you’ll all make it.’ ” Svetlana choked up. “It’s triggering,” she said. “This was the first time we were addressed like human beings.” 

After processing, the women were led through an underground labyrinth that, Svetlana said, “would have looked beautiful in a movie”—dirty yellow walls, rusted pipes, wet floor—to a large room with open shower stalls. Soon after, another twenty-four women entered, and Nadezhda was among them. “A lot of women were sure that they were going to open the gas now,” Svetlana said, referring to the use of shower heads in gas chambers in Nazi death camps. Svetlana and Nadezhda had barely had a chance to tell each other that they were all right before they were taken to separate cells. This time Svetlana was one of seventeen women in a ten-person cell. “And this was super comfortable,” she said. “There were pillows and blankets, and, when we entered, there were two large loaves of bread on the table. There were two windows. In the morning, they brought us oatmeal, and it was the best oatmeal I’ve ever eaten in my life. All we did there was eat and sleep.” 

After two days and two nights in Žodzina, Svetlana and Nadezhda were released, but not before they signed a piece of paper saying that they regretted what they had done, whatever that was. As they left the jail, they saw that volunteers had set up tents with food, water, and first-aid stations. There were counsellors available, and rides on offer to anywhere in Belarus. “I’d never seen anything like this,” Svetlana said. Colleagues from Belarus Free Theatre were also there waiting for Svetlana and Nadezhda. 

They spent much of the following day in line at Akrescina, the first place they were held, waiting to get their cell phones and other personal possessions. Again, Svetlana was amazed: “People were bringing hot food, ice cream; there are medical doctors there, counsellors, clergy. Nothing like this has ever existed in Belarus, ever.” 

I talked to one of the people who helped organize medical and mental-health help outside of jails. Khalid Rustamov, a thirty-three-year-old plastic surgeon, went to a protest with a friend on Sunday, August 9th. The following day, he found out that the friend, who is also a doctor, had been detained. Rustamov spent the day riding around on his motorcycle, observing the police crushing protests all over Minsk. He then rode to a large hospital where he had once interned at an emergency room: from the way he had seen police treating protesters, he assumed that the hospital would be overwhelmed with trauma patients, and he wanted to volunteer. To his surprise, there were few patients. Over the next day or so, Rustamov realized that the police were taking badly injured protesters to military hospitals rather than civilian ones, presumably in an attempt to conceal the extent of casualties from the public. 

Doctors, however, were exchanging information in closed online chats. Physicians from military hospitals uploaded pictures of injuries they were seeing: severed limbs; a torso that looked like its front had been ripped off; holes blown through bodies. Most of these injuries, Rustamov suspected, resulted from stun grenades exploding at close range. (Rustamov sent me some of these pictures in self-destruct mode over a secure channel; when I saw the first one, I didn’t realize at first that I was looking at a human body.) “I started organizing physicians and psychologists to wait for people right outside the jails at Akrescina and Žodzina,” Rustamov said. He assumed that a lot of people would be released with physical and mental trauma–an assumption that was confirmed when he picked up his friend from Žodzina two days after his arrest, and the friend told him about abuse he had suffered. Rustamov also drafted a letter to the interior minister on behalf of Belarusian doctors, asking that they be allowed to treat people in detention. At least thirteen hundred medical professionals signed, but the ministry has not responded. Finally, Rustamov decided to start connecting doctors with journalists, to try to draw attention to the violence inflicted on protesters. 

Rustamov introduced me, virtually, to a doctor who worked the night shift in a Minsk hospital on August 11th, two days after the vote. “I saw four patients who had been beaten,” Vera (not her real name) wrote to me over Telegram. “I saw bruises that covered their entire bodies. These bruises had particular shapes, which reflected the outline of objects used to inflict the blows—for example, batons. I was particularly struck by a bruise on the face of one of the patients. It had the shape of a boot sole. The patient had been kicked in the face. Neither I nor any of my colleagues had ever seen anything like this. I never could have imagined that I would see trauma such as this in peacetime.” Vera sent me the diagnoses she had written down for the patients she saw that night. They read like catalogues: “Closed craniocerebral injury: concussion from. Contusion of the right eye. Hematoma of the eyelid of the right eye. Contused wound of the right superciliary arch. Multiple hematomas, bruises, abrasions of the forehead, right parietal region, chest, lumbar region, right forearm, left hand, right and left gluteal regions, right and left knee joints, right and left lower leg.” That’s all one person. 

Another doctor told me that August 11th was one of the worst nights. Nina (not her real name), a twenty-five-year-old emergency physician, said that she had seen many cracked skulls, crushed feet, fingers torn off by stun grenades. “The rubber bullets are particularly bad,” she said. “They fire them at point-blank range.” She said that she had treated a twenty-year-old man who had been shot through the lung, in the back, with a rubber bullet. “I was treating him right there, and I spent fifteen minutes asking the special-forces officers to call an ambulance, because I couldn’t use my phone.” They finally relented, and the young man survived. Nina said that she had also treated people who were suffering from exposure to a gas: their eyes were burning, and they were suffocating. 

Nina does the work as a volunteer, with other emergency-room doctors but against the explicit orders of her hospital’s administration, which has banned the doctors from wearing their recognizable emergency uniforms to work at the protests. Many of Nina’s colleagues were arrested and held for three or four days. Nina herself has been beaten. “I was treating this officer, who had a head injury,” she told me by phone. “Suddenly, I feel a blow between my shoulder blades and I collapse. When I came to, it was to this officer screaming bloody murder, ‘Don’t touch her!’ But his boss still hit me and said, ‘If you are such a hero, wear this with pride.’ ” Nina said that she didn’t understand what the senior officer meant until she got home and undressed: on her hip, she had a bruise in the shape of a cross. 

“Now they’ve become a little softer, but we doctors are still expecting the worst,” she told me when we spoke on the morning of Monday, August 17th, around eleven, Minsk time. She had just got home from a shift at the hospital, following a day’s volunteer shift at the protest, mostly treating people for heat stroke. I asked her when she had last slept. “A week ago,” she said. “I mean, I grab half an hour here and there.” She wasn’t planning to sleep now, either. She was going to eat, change, and go to work at the first-aid station at Akrescina, before reporting for work at the hospital 

Last Monday night, Aleksei Nesterenko, a thirty-two-year-old physician, didn’t come home from work. His wife, Olga, also a doctor, spent the next two days calling the police, the hospitals, and the morgues. Then she got a phone call from a man who said that he had a list of people who were being held in a cell in Žodzina. On Thursday, Aleksei was released and told his wife what had happened. She told me the story over the phone while he listened and confirmed some details. 

He was riding his bicycle home from work when he was arrested. He was beaten with a baton as he was thrown in a van that then drove around the city picking up more people: a man who was coming home from the store, another who had come outside to take out the garbage. Eventually, sixty people were stuffed into a prisoner transport with virtually no ventilation, so by the time the transport pulled into Žodzina, the men’s clothes were soaked with sweat. They were made to kneel on the ground in the prison yard, the crowns of their heads on the ground. Their hands were tied behind their backs with twine. Now, because their clothes were wet, they were freezing. Anyone who shifted position was beaten. After four hours in the yard, the men were transferred to a conference hall, where they sat until morning, now on chairs, with their heads hanging down between their knees. As they were processed, one by one, their captors beat them, demanding to know, “Who do you work for?” They also took selfies with their victims. 

“We were never political,” Olga told me. “But in this last week I’ve grown proud of my people: there is no leader—people organize everything themselves. This is true democracy.” 

Svetlana said that she felt like Belarus had made a quantum leap while she and Nadezhda were behind bars. “We were locked up in one country and released into another,” she said. “We are free, and so is Belarus.” The day after they were released, Svetlana and Nadezhda went to a memorial for the first protester killed in Minsk, thirty-four-year-old Alexander Taraykouski. The authorities claimed that he died because an explosive device went off in his hands, but a video recording appears to show that he was shot. “I cried my eyes out at the memorial,” Svetlana told me. “People carrying red-and-white Belarusian flags, people who are free and happy—you can’t push them back in.” The red-and-white flag has been taken up by the anti-Lukashenka protesters and has been replacing the official red-and-green flag all over the country. 

On Sunday, Svetlana and Nadezhda, Khalid, Nina, and others I interviewed attended the mass protest in Minsk. Olga and Aleksei Nesterenko stayed home and spent all day talking to journalists; Olga told me that going public was terrifying, but it was also, as she and Aleksei had decided, their civic duty. “I figure the people are coming out for us today, and we are coming out for them.” Most of their interlocutors were Belarusian journalists, including a couple who came from outlets that were loyal to the regime just days ago. The staff at Belarusian state television joined a nationwide strike: on Monday, the channel broadcast a live feed of an empty couch. Major industrial plants were on strike. On Monday morning, Lukashenka was booed when he visited the Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant. As the workers chanted, “Go away!,” the dictator swore that he would not leave his post or agree to a revote. Striking workers took to the streets as he left the plant, marching in the direction of the Minsk Automobile Plant. 

On Monday and Tuesday, the protests continued and the strike spread to more industrial plants. Protesters gathered outside the jails to demand the release of detained protesters. On Tuesday the interior ministry said that forty-four people remained behind bars, out of about seven thousand arrested in the first days of the protests. About six hundred have filed official complaints about the treatment to which they were subjected in jail. Sviatlana Tsihanouskaya, Lukashenka’s electoral opponent, who went into exile last week, announced that she had formed a committee that will coordinate the transition of power. Composed of writers—including the Nobel laureate Svetlana Alexievich—artists, academics, entrepreneurs, and prominent professionals, the group claims no political agenda. On Tuesday evening, representatives of the Coordinating Council, as it is called, held a press briefing at which they announced that their singular goal is to facilitate free and fair elections. 

Lukashenka has so far rejected the possibility of negotiating with the opposition. But he no longer has the resources to hold on to power. Shooting, beating, and teargassing protesters; torturing inmates; and terrorizing random citizens have served only to unite and inspire Belarusians. One of only two things could end the protests now: either Lukashenka’s resignation or overwhelming force of the kind that Russia could supply. Lukashenka has held two long telephone conversations with Putin, who has issued general reassurances. He is unlikely, however, to want to prop up Lukashenka, who has been an unreliable ally: after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, Lukashenka cleaned up his human-rights act, released political prisoners, and started shoring up relations with the European Union, in the evident hope of having protection against Russia. In other words, it’s likely that the Kremlin would make its aid contingent on Lukashenka’s stepping down. 

Alternatively, Moscow can just wait until the Belarusian people bring Lukashenka down themselves and then attack, much as Russia attacked Ukraine immediately after the uprising there toppled President Viktor Yanukovych. Russian independent media reported on Monday that trucks from the Russian Guard, Putin’s personal army, were headed in the direction of the Belarusian border. 

Masha Gessen, a staff writer at The New Yorker, is the author of eleven books, including “Surviving Autocracy” and “The Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia,” which won the National Book Award in 2017.

 

Monday, August 10, 2020

Facing bleak November, Republicans look to stoke BLM backlash

Facing bleak November, Republicans look to stoke BLM backlash

The battle to define the movement comes as the president and fellow GOP candidates try to win back suburban voters.

 

By LAURA BARRÓN-LÓPEZ and ALEX THOMPSON Politico

For a brief moment after George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis policeman in late May, some members of the GOP joined calls for change as protests exploded onto streets across the country. That moment is over.

Facing possible electoral calamity, Republicans are now turning to a familiar playbook: stoking fear by trying to redefine the Black Lives Matter movement as a radical leftist mob looking to sabotage the white, suburban lifestyle.

Republicans are using two lines of attack: the Trump administration, candidates in safe red seats and right-wing social media channels seek to label the entire movement “Marxist” and anti-family as they try to energize their conservative base. Republicans running in swing districts and states, meanwhile, are tying their Democratic opponents to activists’ demands to defund police departments, while avoiding explicitly mentioning Black Lives Matter. Instead, Republicans running in competitive general election races have focused recent ads on more abstract targets like “left-wing radicals" and the "liberal mob."

It’s a distinction Democratic pollsters and lawmakers attribute to the dramatic shift in public views on police brutality, and who and what people associate with the declaration that “Black Lives Matter.” The new broad support for the movement, they say, makes it harder to tie Black Lives Matter to one person, organization or ideology.

“People putting ‘Black Lives Matter’ signs on their lawns, it's not an endorsement of a particular organization so much as a value statement uniting a lot of people from many backgrounds,” said Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowksi, whose predominantly white New Jersey district was held by Republicans for decades before he won in 2018.

That hasn't deterred Republicans, who have increased their criticism of the movement over the past month. On the same day President Donald Trump tweeted that Black Lives Matter was “a symbol of hate,” his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, declared to a group of reporters at the White House that "Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization … Black Lives Matter has been planning to destroy the police for three years.”

 BY MAYA KING

Other Trump administration officials and Republican lawmakers, particularly those running in tough primaries, followed suit, warning, in addition, that the movement wanted to destroy the “nuclear family.” Fox News hosts, conservative talk radio personalities and think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation joined in, as well. Prager University’s “Black Lives Matter is a Marxist Movement” video released this month has over a million views on YouTube and is one of several popular videos it has produced on the topic.

So far, the GOP attempts to discredit the movement have yet to stick. With just under three months until the election, Black Lives Matter has won mainstream support across racial and partisan lines that would have been almost unthinkable six months ago. But the battle to define the movement is not over, as Trump bets he can turn the suburbs, lost to Republicans in 2018, in his favor by attempting to cast a movement for racial equality as a threat to white voters.

“We recognize that this is not simply an issue fight, this isn't simply a narrative war — what we think we're experiencing is a social and cultural and political realignment,” said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party and a leader with the Movement for Black Lives coalition. “We continue to give that backlash the adequate concern and respect one would give any dangerous opponent, even one that clearly is on the wrong side of history.”

Though Black Lives Matter is a decentralized ecosystem that encompasses more than 150 organizations, Trump’s allies are trying to wed the entire movement to the personal beliefs of a pair of self-described Marxists who formed the Black Lives Matter Global Network in 2013, in the aftermath of the killing of Trayvon Martin. Many other supporters and leaders organizing under the Black Lives Matter banner — which is now considered to be the largest racial justice movement in the history of the country — don’t identify with Marxism.

Trump-endorsed Tennessee Senate candidate Bill Hagerty told POLITICO that Black Lives Matter wants to see the “destruction of the nuclear family.” Speaking to a TV pundit with ties to white supremacy, Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler recently attacked WNBA players for promoting the "Black Lives Matter” message and has repeatedly used the Marxist tag.

Conservative critiques are based on the fact that two founders of Black Lives Matter Global Network, Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza, are self-declared Marxists — a description Cullors used in a 2015 interview. Republicans have also criticized language on the network's website which says one of its missions is to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement.” 

Garza and Cullors first made the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag go viral after the acquittal of Martin's killer. Their group also owns BlackLivesMatter.com and has been an advocate of defunding the police. 

“Yes, I’m trained in different economic philosophies,” Cullors said in a statement through a spokesperson, but added, “I refuse to be reduced to a single clip from an interview that was manipulated for white supremacist and right wing fear mongering.” She declined an interview. 

Melina Abdullah, a Pan-African Studies professor at California State University, Los Angeles and head of BLM's LA chapter, wrote the passage on the nuclear family that is featured on the BLMGN website. Abdullah explained that it is an “affirmation of the African principle that it takes a village to raise a child. It's invoking the idea that all of us are responsible for our collective children.”

Republican efforts “to assail that statement actually has opened up an important conversation within the Black community,” Abdullah said. “It hasn't had the backlash that I think that they wanted it to have.”

In a sign that the Marxism tag might already be falling flat, Giuliani took his attacks a step further Thursday, falsely accusing BLM activists of being terrorists. "These are people who hate white people," Giuliani said on Fox News. "These are killers."

Some Republican strategists believe that the combination of early summer riots, the controversial stances of some BLMGN members, plus the mainstreaming of “defund the police,” have given them an opening to diminish Democrats' current electoral advantage. Democrats and BLM organizers point to the polls, describing the GOP strategy as a nakedly racist last gasp that won’t gain traction outside the right-wing echo chamber.

“The average voter in that swing suburb is not thinking about BLM as [select] leaders of the movement,” said Jefrey Pollock, president of polling firm Global Strategy Group, who works with Democrats in swing House and Senate races. “They're thinking about the larger conversation that is happening about African Americans and racial injustice.”

At the moment, more than 60 percent of Americans support the movement, according to recent polls. And 62 percent of white people say minorities are not treated equally in the criminal justice system — up 18 points since 2014.

Voters in urban areas support the BLM movement by 73 percent, suburban voters by 62 percent and rural voters by 54 percent, according to July Navigator research done by GSG and GBAO Strategies provided to POLITICO.

One senior Republican strategist noted, however, that while support continues to be high, opposition to the BLM movement spiked 9 points in July, according to Civiqs.

Ian Prior, a Republican strategist working to unseat swing district Democrat Rep. Matt Cartwright in Scranton, Pa., acknowledged that BLM is difficult to campaign against but argued that the movement — and Democrats supporting it — has given Republicans an opening on supporting police.

“Explaining the difference between the Black Lives Matter movement versus the Black Lives Matter sentiment — there’s nuance there and nuance is hard in politics,” he said. “But support for law enforcement, that’s not nuanced and that’s where I think you’ll see a lot of the Republican messaging in tough races.” 

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Bottom of Form

So far, Republican candidates who are currently airing ads have mostly refrained from directly naming the BLM movement. In ads that aired from May 25 to the end of July, only one GOP ad in a primary race used the words “Black Lives Matter,” while saying that liberals don’t care about Black lives, and another used the term “violent thugs,” according to an analysis provided by Ad Analytics.

But as primaries pass — dragged out because of the pandemic — and general election races ramp up, Democrats in vulnerable seats are bracing for more Republicans to step up their attacks.

“I actually stood up in front of 1,500 people at a Black Lives Matter rally and said explicitly that I disagree with the ‘defund the police’ slogan,” Malinowksi said. “And it will not stop them from accusing me of defunding the police because that's just the Republican talking point everywhere this year.”

Though, notably, Malinowksi’s Republican opponent, state Sen. Thomas Kean Jr., attended a BLM rally this summer.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has walked a similar tightrope — embracing protesters’ urgent condemnations of racial injustice without backing some of their proposed solutions, such as calls to “defund the police.”

Asked for comment about the co-founders of BLMGM, Biden’s campaign pointed to past statements on the campaign trail when he said, “I ain’t a socialist.”

 

Saturday, August 08, 2020

A Song That Changed Music Forever

 

A Song That Changed Music Forever



100 years ago, Mamie Smith recorded a seminal blues hit that gave voice to outrage at violence against Black Americans.

By David Hajdu NY Times

Mr. Hajdu is a cultural historian and music critic.

Sheet music cover for “Crazy Blues.”Credit...

Robert Langmuir African American Photograph Collection at Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library, Emory University

On Aug. 10, 1920, two African-American musicians, Mamie Smith and Perry Bradford, went into a New York studio and changed the course of music history. Ms. Smith, then a modestly successful singer from Cincinnati who had made only one other record, a sultry ballad that fizzled in the marketplace, recorded a new song by Mr. Bradford called “Crazy Blues.” A boisterous cry of outrage by a woman driven mad by mistreatment, the song spoke with urgency and fire to Black listeners across the country who had been ravaged by the abuses of race-hate groups, the police and military forces in the preceding year — the notorious “Red Summer” of 1919.

“Crazy Blues” became a hit record of unmatched proportions and profound impact. Within a month of its release, it sold some 75,000 copies and would be reported to sell more than two million over time. It established the blues as a popular art and prepared the way for a century of Black expression in the fiery core of American music.

As a record, something made for private listening in the home, “Crazy Blues” was able to say things rarely heard in public performances. Seemingly a song about a woman whose man has left her, it reveals itself, on close listening, to be a song about a woman moved to kill her abusive partner. As a work of blues, it used the language of domestic strife to tell a story of violence and subjugation that Black Americans also knew outside the home, in a world of white oppression. The blues worked on multiple levels simultaneously and partly in code, with “my man” or “the man” translatable as “the white man” or “white people.”

Ms. Smith, a skilled contralto with a keen sense of drama, brought clarity and panache to words that would strike today’s listeners as conventional only because they have been replicated and emulated in countless variations over the past century: “I can’t sleep at night/ I can’t eat a bite/ ’Cause the man I love/ he don’t treat me right.”

Out of her mind with despair, the singer turns to violence against her oppressor for relief in the chorus that gives the song its title: “Now the doctor’s gonna do all that he can/ But what you’re gonna need is an undertaker man/ I ain’t had nothin’ but bad news/ Now I’ve got the crazy blues.”

That a woman was singing made the song an acutely potent message of protest against the forces of authority, be they male or white, domestic or sociopolitical.

With “Crazy Blues,” Mamie Smith opened the door to a surge of powerfully voiced female singers who defied the conventions of singerly gentility to make the blues a popular phenomenon in the 1920s. Indeed, the blues became a full-blown craze, with listeners of every color able to buy and listen at home to music marketed as “race records.” The form was initially associated almost exclusively with women such as Ms. Smith, Ma Rainey, Ethel Waters and Bessie Smith. They and many more women made hundreds of records that sold millions of copies over more than a decade — well before the great bluesman Robert Johnson stepped into a recording studio for the first time, in November 1936.

There had been some blues recordings before “Crazy Blues,” nearly all instrumentals or records, often made by white musicians, of songs of various kinds with the word “Blues” in the title. A feeling of veracity as Black expression was part of the secret of “Crazy Blues.” But so was the song’s disturbing but powerful ending, in which Ms. Smith sings allegorically of the darkening circumstances: “There’s a change in the ocean/ change in the deep blue sea.” In the concluding verse, she speaks of changing the way she responds. She has decided to “go and get some hop,” she announces, and “get myself a gun and shoot myself a cop.”

It was an idea at once abhorrent and cathartic. Recorded in the wake of horrific violence against African-Americans, “Crazy Blues” was not only an outlet for exasperation in the face of “nothin’ but bad news.” It was also a rallying cry in Black musical language and a call for redress through reciprocal violence — one that broke daringly out of domestic allegory into a literal sphere where the police and the military claimed the only prerogative to shoot at will.

One hundred years later, the blues endures as the essence of American music, from rock ’n’ roll and three-chord country songs to hip-hop and contemporary R&B. If in a 2020 hit like Chris Brown and Young Thug’s “Go Crazy,” the title means to party, not to feel blue, we should remember that Mamie Smith’s “Crazy Blues” was also a dance tune: People were not only moved by it; they moved to it.

From its earliest days, the blues has always done many and sometimes contradictory things at the same time, as both an outlet for rage and a release from it. Hatred and violence have hardly disappeared from the American landscape, but neither has the blues.

David Hajdu (@davidhajdu) is the music critic for The Nation, a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the author of the forthcoming “Adrianne Geffel: A Fiction.”