Podcasts about Nativism

Unpacking the rise of anti-Indian hatred and how Vivek Ramaswamy is 100% responsible, how anti-Indian racism is just the latest phase in nativism, Indian culpability, Figma Indians, taking email jobs, racist jokes not aging well, racist tropes in star wars. Also, an Indian guy got killed in Ottowa last week by his racist neighbor--not good!

A year ago, the great American historian Adam Hochschild came on KEEN ON AMERICA to discuss American Midnight, his best selling account of the crisis of American democracy after World War One. A year later, is history really repeating itself in today's crisis of American democracy? For Hochschild, there are certainly parallels between the current political situation in the US and post WW1 America. Describing how wartime hysteria and fear of communism led to unprecedented government repression, including mass imprisonment for political speech, vigilante violence, and press censorship. Hochschild notes eery similarities to today's Trump's administration. He expresses concern about today's threats to democratic institutions while suggesting the importance of understanding Trump supporters' grievances and finding ways to bridge political divides. Five Key Takeaways* The period of 1917-1921 in America saw extreme government repression, including imprisoning people for speech, vigilante violence, and widespread censorship—what Hochschild calls America's "Trumpiest" era before Trump.* American history shows recurring patterns of nativism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and scapegoating that politicians exploit during times of economic or social stress.* The current political climate shows concerning parallels to this earlier period, including intimidation of opposition, attacks on institutions, and the widespread acceptance of authoritarian tendencies.* Hochschild emphasizes the importance of understanding the grievances and suffering that lead people to support authoritarian figures rather than dismissing their concerns.* Despite current divisions, Hochschild believes reconciliation is possible and necessary, pointing to historical examples like President Harding pardoning Eugene Debs after Wilson imprisoned him. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We recently celebrated our 2500th edition of Keen On. Some people suggest I'm mad. I think I probably am to do so many shows. Just over a little more than a year ago, we celebrated our 2000th show featuring one of America's most distinguished historians, Adam Hochschild. I'm thrilled that Adam is joining us again a year later. He's the author of "American Midnight, The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis." This was his last book. He's the author of many other books. He is now working on a book on the Great Depression. He's joining us from his home in Berkeley, California. Adam, to borrow a famous phrase or remix a famous phrase, a year is a long time in American history.Adam Hochschild: That's true, Andrew. I think this past year, or actually this past 100 days or so has been a very long and very difficult time in American history that we all saw coming to some degree, but I don't think we realized it would be as extreme and as rapid as it has been.Andrew Keen: Your book, Adam, "American Midnight, A Great War of Violent Peace and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis," is perhaps the most prescient warning. When you researched that you were saying before we went live that your books usually take you between four and five years, so you couldn't really have planned for this, although I guess you began writing and researching American Midnight during the Trump 1.0 regime. Did you write it as a warning to something like is happening today in America?Adam Hochschild: Well, I did start writing it and did most of the work on it during Trump's first term in office. So I was very struck by the parallels. And they're in plain sight for everybody to see. There are various dark currents that run through this country of ours. Nativism, threats to deport troublemakers. Politicians stirring up violent feelings against immigrants, vigilante violence, all those things have been with us for a long time. I've always been fascinated by that period, 1917 to 21, when they surged to the surface in a very nasty way. That was the subject of the book. Naturally, I hoped we wouldn't have to go through anything like that again, but here we are definitely going through it again.Andrew Keen: You wrote a lovely piece earlier this month for the Washington Post. "America was at its Trumpiest a hundred years ago. Here's how to prevent the worst." What did you mean by Trumpiest, Adam? I'm not sure if you came up with that title, but I know you like the term. You begin the essay. What was the Trumpiest period in American life before Donald Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I didn't invent the word, but I certainly did use it in the piece. What I meant by that is that when you look at this period just over 100 years ago, 1917 to 1921, Woodrow Wilson's second term in office, two things happened in 1917 that kicked off a kind of hysteria in this country. One was that Wilson asked the American Congress to declare war on Germany, which it promptly did, and when a country enters a major war, especially a world war, it sets off a kind of hysteria. And then that was redoubled some months later when the country received news of the Russian Revolution, and many people in the establishment in America were afraid the Russian Revolution might come to the United States.So, a number of things happened. One was that there was a total hysteria against all things German. There were bonfires of German books all around the country. People would take German books out of libraries, schools, college and university libraries and burn them in the street. 19 such bonfires in Ohio alone. You can see pictures of it on the internet. There was hysteria about the German language. I heard about this from my father as I was growing up because his father was a Jewish immigrant from Germany. They lived in New York City. They spoke German around the family dinner table, but they were terrified of doing so on the street because you could get beaten up for that. Several states passed laws against speaking German in public or speaking German on the telephone. Eminent professors declared that German was a barbaric language. So there was that kind of hysteria.Then as soon as the United States declared war, Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress, this draconian law, which essentially gave the government the right to lock up anybody who said something that was taken to be against the war. And they used this law in a devastating way. During those four years, roughly a thousand Americans spent a year or more in jail and a much larger number, shorter periods in jail solely for things that they wrote or said. These were people who were political prisoners sent to jail simply for something they wrote or said, the most famous of them was Eugene Debs, many times the socialist candidate for president. He'd gotten 6% of the popular vote in 1912 and in 1918. For giving an anti-war speech from a park bandstand in Ohio, he was sent to prison for 10 years. And he was still in prison two years after the war ended in November, 1920, when he pulled more than 900,000 votes for president from his jail cell in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.So that was one phase of the repression, political prisoners. Another was vigilante violence. The government itself, the Department of Justice, chartered a vigilante group, something called the American Protective League, which went around roughing up people that it thought were evading the draft, beating up people at anti-war rallies, arresting people with citizens arrest whom they didn't have their proper draft papers on them, holding them for hours or sometimes for days until they could produce the right paperwork.Andrew Keen: I remember, Adam, you have a very graphic description of some of this violence in American Midnight. There was a story, was it a union leader?Adam Hochschild: Well, there is so much violence that happened during that time. I begin the book with a graphic description of vigilantes raiding an office of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, taking a bunch of wobblies out into the prairie at night, stripping them, whipping them, flogging them fiercely, and then tarring and feathering them, and firing shotguns over their heads so they would run off into the Prairie at Night. And they did. Those guys were lucky because they survive. Other people were killed by this vigilante violence.And the final thing about that period which I would mention is the press censorship. The Espionage Act gave the Postmaster General the power to declare any publication in the United States unmailable. And for a newspaper or a magazine that was trying to reach a national audience, the only way you could do so was through the US mail because there was no internet then. No radio, no TV, no other way of getting your publication to somebody. And this put some 75 newspapers and magazines that the government didn't like out of business. It in addition censored three or four hundred specific issues of other publications as well.So that's why I feel this is all a very dark period of American life. Ironically, that press censorship operation, because it was run by the postmaster general, who by the way loved being chief censor, it was ran out of the building that was then the post office headquarters in Washington, which a hundred years later became the Trump International Hotel. And for $4,000 a night, you could stay in the Postmaster General's suite.Andrew Keen: You, Adam, the First World War is a subject you're very familiar with. In addition to American Midnight, you wrote "To End All Wars, a story of loyalty and rebellion, 1914 to 18," which was another very successful of your historical recreations. Many countries around the world experience this turbulence, the violence. Of course, we had fascism in the 20s in Europe. And later in the 30s as well. America has a long history of violence. You talk about the violence after the First World War or after the declaration. But I was just in Montgomery, Alabama, went to the lynching museum there, which is considerably troubling. I'm sure you've been there. You're not necessarily a comparative political scientist, Adam. How does America, in its paranoia during the war and its clampdown on press freedom, on its violence, on its attempt to create an authoritarian political system, how does it compare to other democracies? Is some of this stuff uniquely American or is it a similar development around the world?Adam Hochschild: You see similar pressures almost any time that a major country is involved in a major war. Wars are never good for civil liberties. The First World War, to stick with that period of comparison, was a time that saw strong anti-war movements in all of the warring countries, in Germany and Britain and Russia. There were people who understood at the time that this war was going to remake the world for the worse in every way, which indeed it did, and who refused to fight. There were 800 conscientious objectors jailed in Russia, and Russia did not have much freedom of expression to begin with. In Germany, many distinguished people on the left, like Rosa Luxemburg, were sent to jail for most of the war.Britain was an interesting case because I think they had a much longer established tradition of free speech than did the countries on the continent. It goes way back and it's a distinguished and wonderful tradition. They were also worried for the first two and a half, three years of the war before the United States entered, that if they crack down too hard on their anti-war movement, it would upset people in the United States, which they were desperate to draw into the war on their side. Nonetheless, there were 6,000 conscientious objectors who were sent to jail in England. There was intermittent censorship of anti-war publications, although some were able to publish some of the time. There were many distinguished Britons, such as Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who later won a Nobel Prize, sent to jails for six months for his opposition to the war. So some of this happened all over.But I think in the United States, especially with these vigilante groups, it took a more violent form because remember the country at that time was only a few decades away from these frontier wars with the Indians. And the westward expansion of the United States during the 19th century, the western expansion of white settlement was an enormously bloody business that was almost genocidal for the Native Americans. Many people had participated in that. Many people saw that violence as integral to what the country was. So there was a pretty well-established tradition of settling differences violently.Andrew Keen: I'm sure you're familiar with Stephen Hahn's book, "A Liberal America." He teaches at NYU, a book which in some ways is very similar to yours, but covers all of American history. Hahn was recently on the Ezra Klein show, talking like you, like we're talking today, Adam, about the very American roots of Trumpism. Hahn, it's an interesting book, traces much of this back to Jackson and the wars of the frontier against Indians. Do you share his thesis on that front? Are there strong similarities between Jackson, Wilson, and perhaps even Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I regret to say I'm not familiar with Hahn's book, but I certainly do feel that that legacy of constant war for most of the 19th century against the Native Americans ran very deep in this country. And we must never forget how appealing it is to young men to take part in war. Unfortunately, all through history, there have been people very tempted by this. And I think when you have wars of conquest, such as happen in the American West, against people who are more poorly armed, or colonial wars such as Europe fought in Africa and Asia against much more poorly-armed opponents, these are especially appealing to young people. And in both the United States and in the European colonization of Africa, which I know something about. For young men joining in these colonizing or conquering adventures, there was a chance not just to get martial glory, but to also get rich in the process.Andrew Keen: You're all too familiar with colonial history, Adam. Another of your books was about King Leopold's Congo and the brutality there. Where was the most coherent opposition morally and politically to what was happening? My sense in Trump's America is perhaps the most persuasive and moral critique comes from the old Republican Center from people like David Brooks, Peter Wayno has been on the show many times, Jonathan Rausch. Where were people like Teddy Roosevelt in this narrative? Were there critics from the right as well as from the left?Adam Hochschild: Good question. I first of all would give a shout out to those Republican centrists who've spoken out against Trump, the McCain Republicans. There are some good people there - Romney, of course as well. They've been very forceful. There wasn't really an equivalent to that, a direct equivalent to that in the Wilson era. Teddy Roosevelt whom you mentioned was a far more ferocious drum beater than Wilson himself and was pushing Wilson to declare war long before Wilson did. Roosevelt really believed that war was good for the soul. He desperately tried to get Wilson to appoint him to lead a volunteer force, came up with an elaborate plan for this would be a volunteer army staffed by descendants of both Union and Confederate generals and by French officers as well and homage to the Marquis de Lafayette. Wilson refused to allow Roosevelt to do this, and plus Roosevelt was, I think, 58 years old at the time. But all four of Roosevelt's sons enlisted and joined in the war, and one of them was killed. And his father was absolutely devastated by this.So there was not really that equivalent to the McCain Republicans who are resisting Trump, so to speak. In fact, what resistance there was in the U.S. came mostly from the left, and it was mostly ruthlessly silenced, all these people who went to jail. It was silenced also because this is another important part of what happened, which is different from today. When the federal government passed the Espionage Act that gave it these draconian powers, state governments, many of them passed copycat laws. In fact, a federal justice department agent actually helped draft the law in New Hampshire. Montana locked up people serving more than 60 years cumulatively of hard labor for opposing the war. California had 70 people in prison. Even my hometown of Berkeley, California passed a copycat law. So, this martial spirit really spread throughout the country at that time.Andrew Keen: So you've mentioned that Debs was the great critic and was imprisoned and got a considerable number of votes in the election. You're writing a book now about the Great Depression and FDR's involvement in it. FDR, of course, was a distant cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. At this point, he was an aspiring Democratic politician. Where was the critique within the mainstream Democratic party? Were people like FDR, who had a position in the Wilson administration, wasn't he naval secretary?Adam Hochschild: He was assistant secretary of the Navy. And he went to Europe during the war. For an aspiring politician, it's always very important to say I've been at the front. And so he went to Europe and certainly made no sign of resistance. And then in 1920, he was the democratic candidate for vice president. That ticket lost of course.Andrew Keen: And just to remind ourselves, this was before he became disabled through polio, is that correct?Adam Hochschild: That's right. That happened in the early 20s and it completely changed his life and I think quite deepened him as a person. He was a very ambitious social climbing young politician before then but I think he became something deeper. Also the political parties at the time were divided each party between right and left wings or war mongering and pacifist wings. And when the Congress voted on the war, there were six senators who voted against going to war and 50 members of the House of Representatives. And those senators and representatives came from both parties. We think of the Republican Party as being more conservative, but it had some staunch liberals in it. The most outspoken voice against the war in the Senate was Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, who was a Republican.Andrew Keen: I know you write about La Follette in American Midnight, but couldn't one, Adam, couldn't won before the war and against domestic repression. You wrote an interesting piece recently for the New York Review of Books about the Scopes trial. William Jennings Bryan, of course, was involved in that. He was the defeated Democratic candidate, what in about three or four presidential elections in the past. In the early 20th century. What was Bryan's position on this? He had been against the war, is that correct? But I'm guessing he would have been quite critical of some of the domestic repression.Adam Hochschild: You know, I should know the answer to that, Andrew, but I don't. He certainly was against going to war. He had started out in Wilson's first term as Wilson's secretary of state and then resigned in protest against the military buildup and what he saw as a drift to war, and I give him great credit for that. I don't recall his speaking out against the repression after it began, once the US entered the war, but I could be wrong on that. It was not something that I researched. There were just so few voices speaking out. I think I would remember if he had been one of them.Andrew Keen: Adam, again, I'm thinking out loud here, so please correct me if this is a dumb question. What would it be fair to say that one of the things that distinguished the United States from the European powers during the First World War in this period it remained an incredibly insular provincial place barely involved in international politics with a population many of them were migrants themselves would come from Europe but nonetheless cut off from the world. And much of that accounted for the anti-immigrant, anti-foreign hysteria. That exists in many countries, but perhaps it was a little bit more pronounced in the America of the early 20th century, and perhaps in some ways in the early 21st century.Adam Hochschild: Well, we remain a pretty insular place in many ways. A few years ago, I remember seeing the statistic in the New York Times, I have not checked to see whether it's still the case, but I suspect it is that half the members of the United States Congress do not have passports. And we are more cut off from the world than people living in most of the countries of Europe, for example. And I think that does account for some of the tremendous feeling against immigrants and refugees. Although, of course, this is something that is common, not just in Europe, but in many countries all over the world. And I fear it's going to get all the stronger as climate change generates more and more refugees from the center of the earth going to places farther north or farther south where they can get away from parts of the world that have become almost unlivable because of climate change.Andrew Keen: I wonder Democratic Congress people perhaps aren't leaving the country because they fear they won't be let back in. What were the concrete consequences of all this? You write in your book about a young lawyer, J. Edgar Hoover, of course, who made his name in this period. He was very much involved in the Palmer Raids. He worked, I think his first job was for Palmer. How do you see this structurally? Of course, many historians, biographers of Hoover have seen this as the beginning of some sort of American security state. Is that over-reading it, exaggerating what happened in this period?Adam Hochschild: Well, security state may be too dignified a word for the hysteria that reigned in the country at that time. One of the things we've long had in the United States is a hysteria, paranoia directed at immigrants who are coming from what seems to be a new and threatening part of the world. In the mid-19th century, for example, we had the Know-Nothing Party, as it was called, who were violently opposed to Catholic immigrants coming from Ireland. Now, they were people of Anglo-Saxon descent, pretty much, who felt that these Irish Catholics were a tremendous threat to the America that they knew. There was much violence. There were people killed in riots against Catholic immigrants. There were Catholic merchants who had their stores burned and so on.Then it began to shift. The Irish sort of became acceptable, but by the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century the immigrants coming from Europe were now coming primarily from southern and eastern Europe. In other words, Italians, Sicilians, Poles, and Jews. And they became the target of the anti-immigrant crusaders with much hysteria directed against them. It was further inflamed at that time by the Eugenics movement, which was something very strong, where people believed that there was a Nordic race that was somehow superior to everybody else, that the Mediterraneans were inferior people, and that the Africans were so far down the scale, barely worth talking about. And this culminated in 1924 with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that year, which basically slammed the door completely on immigrants coming from Asia and slowed to an absolute trickle those coming from Europe for the next 40 years or so.Andrew Keen: It wasn't until the mid-60s that immigration changed, which is often overlooked. Some people, even on the left, suggest that it was a mistake to radically reform the Immigration Act because we would have inevitably found ourselves back in this situation. What do you think about that, Adam?Adam Hochschild: Well, I think a country has the right to regulate to some degree its immigration, but there always will be immigration in this world. I mean, my ancestors all came from other countries. The Jewish side of my family, I'm half Jewish, were lucky to get out of Europe in plenty of time. Some relatives who stayed there were not lucky and perished in the Holocaust. So who am I to say that somebody fleeing a repressive regime in El Salvador or somewhere else doesn't have the right to come here? I think we should be pretty tolerant, especially if people fleeing countries where they really risk death for one reason or another. But there is always gonna be this strong anti-immigrant feeling because unscrupulous politicians like Donald Trump, and he has many predecessors in this country, can point to immigrants and blame them for the economic misfortunes that many Americans are experiencing for reasons that don't have anything to do with immigration.Andrew Keen: Fast forward Adam to today. You were involved in an interesting conversation on the Nation about the role of universities in the resistance. What do you make of this first hundred days, I was going to say hundred years that would be a Freudian error, a hundred days of the Trump regime, the role, of big law, big universities, newspapers, media outlets? In this emerging opposition, are you chilled or encouraged?Adam Hochschild: Well, I hope it's a hundred days and not a hundred years. I am moderately encouraged. I was certainly deeply disappointed at the outset to see all of those tech titans go to Washington, kiss the ring, contribute to Trump's inauguration festivities, be there in the front row. Very depressing spectacle, which kind of reminds one of how all the big German industrialists fell into line so quickly behind Hitler. And I'm particularly depressed to see the changes in the media, both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post becoming much more tame when it came to endorsing.Andrew Keen: One of the reasons for that, Adam, of course, is that you're a long-time professor at the journalism school at UC Berkeley, so you've been on the front lines.Adam Hochschild: So I really care about a lively press that has free expression. And we also have a huge part of the media like Fox News and One American Network and other outlets that are just pouring forth a constant fire hose of lies and falsehood.Andrew Keen: And you're being kind of calling it a fire hose. I think we could come up with other terms for it. Anyway, a sewage pipe, but that's another issue.Adam Hochschild: But I'm encouraged when I see media organizations that take a stand. There are places like the New York Times, like CNN, like MSNBC, like the major TV networks, which you can read or watch and really find an honest picture of what's going on. And I think that's a tremendously important thing for a country to have. And that you look at the countries that Donald Trump admires, like Putin's Russia, for example, they don't have this. So I value that. I want to keep it. I think that's tremendously important.I was sorry, of course, that so many of those big law firms immediately cave to these ridiculous and unprecedented demands that he made, contributing pro bono work to his causes in return for not getting banned from government buildings. Nothing like that has happened in American history before, and the people in those firms that made those decisions should really be ashamed of themselves. I was glad to see Harvard University, which happens to be my alma mater, be defiant after caving in a little bit on a couple of issues. They finally put their foot down and said no. And I must say, feeling Harvard patriotism is a very rare emotion for me. But this is the first time in 50 years that I've felt some of it.Andrew Keen: You may even give a donation, Adam.Adam Hochschild: And I hope other universities are going to follow its lead, and it looks like they will. But this is pretty unprecedented, a president coming after universities with this determined of ferocity. And he's going after nonprofit organizations as well. There will be many fights there as well, I'm sure we're just waiting to hear about the next wave of attacks which will be on places like the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation and other big nonprofits. So hold on and wait for that and I hope they are as defiant as possible too.Andrew Keen: It's a little bit jarring to hear a wise historian like yourself use the word unprecedented. Is there much else of this given that we're talking historically and the similarities with the period after the first world war, is there anything else unprecedented about Trumpism?Adam Hochschild: I think in a way, we have often had, or not often, but certainly sometimes had presidents in this country who wanted to assume almost dictatorial powers. Richard Nixon certainly is the most recent case before Trump. And he was eventually stopped and forced to leave office. Had that not happened, I think he would have very happily turned himself into a dictator. So we know that there are temptations that come with the desire for absolute power everywhere. But Trump has gotten farther along on this process and has shown less willingness to do things like abide by court orders. The way that he puts pressure on Republican members of Congress.To me, one of the most startling, disappointing, remarkable, and shocking things about these first hundred days is how very few Republican members to the House or Senate have dared to defy Trump on anything. At most, these ridiculous set of appointees that he muscled through the Senate. At most, they got three Republican votes against them. They couldn't muster the fourth necessary vote. And in the House, only one or two Republicans have voted against Trump on anything. And of course, he has threatened to have Elon Musk fund primaries against any member of Congress who does defy him. And I can't help but think that these folks must also be afraid of physical violence because Trump has let all the January 6th people out of jail and the way vigilantes like that operate is they first go after the traitors on their own side then they come for the rest of us just as in the first real burst of violence in Hitler's Germany was the night of the long knives against another faction of the Nazi Party. Then they started coming for the Jews.Andrew Keen: Finally, Adam, your wife, Arlie, is another very distinguished writer.Adam Hochschild: I've got a better picture of her than that one though.Andrew Keen: Well, I got some very nice photos. This one is perhaps a little, well she's thinking Adam. Everyone knows Arlie from her hugely successful work, "Strangers in their Own Land." She has a new book out, "Stolen Pride, Lost Shame and the Rise of the Right." I don't want to put words into Arlie's mouth and she certainly wouldn't let me do that, Adam, but would it be fair to say that her reading, certainly of recent American history, is trying to bring people back together. She talks about the lessons she learned from her therapist brother. And in some ways, I see her as a kind of marriage counselor in America. Given what's happening today in America with Trump, is this still an opportunity? This thing is going to end and it will end in some ways rather badly and perhaps bloodily one way or the other. But is this still a way to bring people, to bring Americans back together? Can America be reunited? What can we learn from American Midnight? I mean, one of the more encouraging stories I remember, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it Coolidge or Harding who invited Debs when he left prison to the White House? So American history might be in some ways violent, but it's also made up of chapters of forgiveness.Adam Hochschild: That's true. I mean, that Debs-Harding example is a wonderful one. Here is Debs sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for a 10-year term. And Debs, by the way, had been in jail before for his leadership of a railway strike when he was a railway workers union organizer. Labor organizing was a very dangerous profession in those days. But Debs was a fairly gentle man, deeply committed to nonviolence. About a year into, a little less than a year into his term, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor, pardoned Debs, let him out of prison, invited him to visit the White House on his way home. And they had a half hour's chat. And when he left the building, Debs told reporters, "I've run for the White house five times, but this is the first time I've actually gotten here." Harding privately told a friend. This was revealed only after his death, that he said, "Debs was right about that war. We never should have gotten involved in it."So yeah, there can be reconciliation. There can be talk across these great differences that we have, and I think there are a number of organizations that are working on that specific project, getting people—Andrew Keen: We've done many of those shows. I'm sure you're familiar with the organization Braver Angels, which seems to be a very good group.Adam Hochschild: So I think it can be done. I really think it could be done and it has to be done and it's important for those of us who are deeply worried about Trump, as you and I are, to understand the grievances and the losses and the suffering that has made Trump's backers feel that here is somebody who can get them out of the pickle that they're in. We have to understand that, and the Democratic Party has to come up with promising alternatives for them, which it really has not done. It didn't really offer one in this last election. And the party itself is in complete disarray right now, I fear.Andrew Keen: I think perhaps Arlie should run for president. She would certainly do a better job than Kamala Harris in explaining it. And of course they're both from Berkeley. Finally, Adam, you're very familiar with the history of Africa, Southern Africa, your family I think was originally from there. Might we need after all this, when hopefully the smoke clears, might we need a Mandela style truth and reconciliation committee to make sense of what's happening?Adam Hochschild: My family's actually not from there, but they were in business there.Andrew Keen: Right, they were in the mining business, weren't they?Adam Hochschild: That's right. Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Well, I don't think it would be on quite the same model as South Africa's. But I certainly think we need to find some way of talking across the differences that we have. Coming from the left side of that divide I just feel all too often when I'm talking to people who feel as I do about the world that there is a kind of contempt or disinterest in Trump's backers. These are people that I want to understand, that we need to understand. We need to understand them in order to hear what their real grievances are and to develop alternative policies that are going to give them a real alternative to vote for. Unless we can do that, we're going to have Trump and his like for a long time, I fear.Andrew Keen: Wise words, Adam. I hope in the next 500 episodes of this show, things will improve. We'll get you back on the show, keep doing your important work, and I'm very excited to learn more about your new project, which we'll come to in the next few months or certainly years. Thank you so much.Adam Hochschild: OK, thank you, Andrew. Good being with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Karol interviews James David Dickson, the host of the Enjoyer Podcast. They discuss the unique culture and identity of Michigan, the challenges the state faces, including brain drain and political divisions, and the importance of local podcasting. James shares his journey into podcasting, his views on nativism, and the upcoming political landscape in Michigan. The Karol Markowicz Show is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Wednesday & Friday.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Happy New Year to each and every one of you!Welcome to Season 6 episode 1 of Light ‘Em Up!We launch 2025 with exciting news! We're actively being downloaded in 117 countries, globally!Without fear or favor — we follow the facts wherever they lead us.We present the facts not the fiction that drive and support our theories forward!We'll shine the antiseptic light of the truth as we deliver this in-depth investigation that started some 14 months ago as we began to march heavily into the election season of 2024.We'll take an up-close and personal historic look at the United States' oldest domestic terrorist organization — the Ku Klux Klan —  and how some of what you are hearing these days from many MAGA Republicans — even from the recent victor in the presidential election, Donald J. Trump — harkens back to the goals and aspirations of the very same night riders — who burned crosses and terrorized Black people and pretty much anyone or anything that moved after the Civil War that wasn't like them.  White, nativist and Protestant.Terror, vigilantism and murder were the Klan's calling card.We'll look at the historic foundation of the Klan.Like it or not, agree or not, the similarities between the 1920s Ku Klux Klan and Donald Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement are stark and marked. Both movements have preached the centrality of being anti-immigrant. Both have been rooted in white supremacy. Both had and have a dark side of associated hate crimes. Both have wrapped themselves in the flag and pretended to be the most patriotic and pro-American.Originally the Ku Klux Klan was established innocuously enough as a social organization by six ex-Confederate officers in the small Southern town of Pulaski, Tennessee.In the spring or early summer of 1866, six men gathered one evening in the Pulaski law office of Judge Thomas M. Jones, the father of one of the founders, to create their new “fraternity”.In 1867 former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest became the first “Grand Wizard" (national leader) of the order.The transformed Klan was to be organized along military lines in a rigid hierarchy with leaders elected at each level.A Grand Cyclops was to be the leader of a local den, or chapter.—    Above him was a Grand Giant in charge of all dens in a county, who in turn was answerable to a Grand Titan.—    A Grand Titan reigned over a Congressional District, and in charge of the whole state was a Grand Dragon.—    They created an organization patterned after a previously prominent college fraternity, Kuklos Adelphon.They adopted the basic ritual of this fraternity with some changes. They took the first part of the name, Kuklos, Greek for circle or band, altered it slightly to Kuklux and added Klan for alliterative appeal.Thus, the Ku Klux Klan was born.With our investigation, we submit that to understand MAGA, the Klan must be considered as a formative background influence.MAGA didn't spring full-blown from the mind of “stable genius” Donald Trump.Many Americans love and strive to hide the deep-seated racism which is part of our history, and that is the case with the Klan. In the early 20th century, the Klan was far more influential than is now recognized.Tune in to hear all of the explosive details.Follow our sponsors:  Newsly, Feedspot and Dayquil Vapo-CoolWe want to hear from you!

Trump recently reconfirmed that he plans to carry out his campaign pledge to enforce mass deportations of many of the 10 million migrants with varying statuses who have entered the United States in recent years. Some overstayed their tourist visas. Some snuck across the border, the so-called “got-aways.” But the majority arrived legally and were admitted as asylum applicants—a status the new Administration plans to revoke. At the helm of this massive undertaking will be former ICE chief Tom Homan, a hardliner who promises no mercy in his plans, including the separation of children from their parents by force of arms.ICE will probably take lead on detentions, but the military may be involved in the construction and administration of Trump's gulag archipelago of concentration camps. Profiting, as always, will be the prison-industrial complex.On the DMZ America podcast, Scott and Ted explore the legal and logistical challenges for Trump. History suggests that not enough Americans will care to make a difference. The co-hosts and friends also consider whether or not there will be substantial political implications: will Americans care enough about these new arrivals to protest and sabotage the program? Scott focuses on the economics. Decreased consumption, reduced tax collections and increased labor shortages could stymie the economy and add trillions to the deficit.The DMZ America Podcast is recorded weekly by political cartoonists Ted Rall and Scott Stantis. Twitter/X: @scottstantis and @tedrallWeb: Rall.com

Trump recently reconfirmed that he plans to carry out his campaign pledge to enforce mass deportations of many of the 10 million migrants with varying statuses who have entered the United States in recent years. Some overstayed their tourist visas. Some snuck across the border, the so-called “got-aways.” But the majority arrived legally and were admitted as asylum applicants—a status the new Administration plans to revoke. At the helm of this massive undertaking will be former ICE chief Tom Homan, a hardliner who promises no mercy in his plans, including the separation of children from their parents by force of arms.ICE will probably take lead on detentions, but the military may be involved in the construction and administration of Trump's gulag archipelago of concentration camps. Profiting, as always, will be the prison-industrial complex.On the DMZ America podcast, Scott and Ted explore the legal and logistical challenges for Trump. History suggests that not enough Americans will care to make a difference. The co-hosts and friends also consider whether or not there will be substantial political implications: will Americans care enough about these new arrivals to protest and sabotage the program? Scott focuses on the economics. Decreased consumption, reduced tax collections and increased labor shortages could stymie the economy and add trillions to the deficit.The DMZ America Podcast is recorded weekly by political cartoonists Ted Rall and Scott Stantis. Twitter/X: @scottstantis and @tedrallWeb: Rall.com

GWhat a CreepSeason 26, Episode 10“The Know-Nothing Party," Nativism, and Springfield, Ohio Today”If you have been keeping up with the news, you may have heard about the city of Springfield, Ohio, where there have been over 33 bomb threats (as of this posting) targeting its Haitian residents. How did this situation come about? Today, we will delve into the origins of the Know Nothing Party, also known as the American Party, a nativist political movement in the United States during the 1840s and 1850s. Understanding the history and policies of this party provides valuable insight into the current immigration debates in the U.S. Content Warning: Racism, bigotry, and general awfulness Sources for this episodeSmithsonianBritannica PolitcoCNNNewsweekSpringfield News-SunNew York TimesThe GuardianBBCSpringfield Commission Meeting August 27, 2024New York MagazineWashington PostNBC NewsThe AtlanticThe Dollop “Know Nothing”Be sure to follow us on social media. But don't follow us too closely … don't be a creep about it! Subscribe to us on Apple PodcastsTwitter: https://twitter.com/CreepPod @CreepPodFacebook: Join the private group! Instagram @WhatACreepPodcastVisit our Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/whatacreepEmail: WhatACreepPodcast@gmail.com We've got merch here! https://whatacreeppodcast.threadless.com/#Our website is www.whatacreeppodcast.com Our logo was created by Claudia Gomez-Rodriguez. Follow her on Instagram @ClaudInCloud

Solidarity 695, 10 January 2024. Articles include: Full ceasefire, peace, two states! Popes, presidents, and markets Yes, an early election; but fight to block Tories now Minimum Service Law: win “no work notice” pledges! Using Gaza to undermine Ukraine Ukraine in danger Run water, post, and other utilities as public services Reject new schools "guidance"! Free Joe Outlaw! End IPP sentences! Free the HK 47! Free Jimmy Lai! Neglect hits women's health Nikolai Yuriev gets 18 years Trans people in Russia "scared for their lives" Nativism, species, and ecology Hamas's record in power in Gaza Building an alternative in Israel Israel: getting a hearing for peace Myanmar: a challenge for unions JSO people in jail, Elbit protesters on trial 5 December protest for Sarah Jane Baker Letter: A reply to critics Letter: socialism on Mars Foster: soiling his own nest Christmas on the tracks Threat of strikes wins concessions: name more dates to keep the pressure on! Kino Eye. Oppenheimer: a complex film Unity can break LU control Junior doctors need solidarity More online: https://workersliberty.org/publications/solidarity/solidarity-695-10-january-2024

On October 14, Australians will vote in a referendum on a simple question: should Indigenous peoples be invited to form an advisory council—a Voice—to Parliament?  It seemed like a shoe-in “Yes”—before the issue was FUBARed by a coalition of antivax, anti lockdown, Q-adjacent white sovereign citizens who believe that they are the true victims of colonization.  Professor Tyson Yunkaporta of Apalech clan joins Matthew to discuss the complexities of this history—including how some vulnerable Indigenous folks have been lured into supporting the “No” vote and providing cover for libertarian and white supremacist agendas. Yunkaporta is the founder of the Indigenous Knowledge Systems Lab at Deakin University in Melbourne AUS, author of Sand Talk: How Indigenous Thinking Can Save the World (2019) and released just this past week: Right Story, Wrong Story: Adventures in Indigenous Thinking. He's also the host of the excellent free range podcast The Other Others.  Sign up today at butcherbox.com/CONSPIRITUALITY and use code CONSPIRITUALITY to receive ground beef for life plus $20 off your first order. Show Notes Indigenous Knowledge Systems Lab at Deakin University Referendum 202 Conspiracy theories are derailing the Yes vote w/ Tyson Yunkaporta  Voice pamphlets: false claims and conspiracy theories distributed across Australia | Indigenous voice to parliament How a soap opera star pushed a conspiracy theory linking the Voice to Parliament to a UN takeover  Key voice battleground South Australia is ‘leaning to no', campaign volunteers say | Indigenous voice to parliament View The Statement - Uluru Statement from the Heart  Aboriginal Tent Embassy — 'the guys who woke up Australia' — marks its 50th anniversary So-Called Sovereign Settlers: Settler Conspirituality and Nativism in the Australian Anti-Vax Movement Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. In the intro, I mention the Bernstein conference workshop I'll participate in, called How can machine learning be used to generate insights and theories in neuroscience?. Follow that link to learn more, and register for the conference here. Hope to see you there in late September in Berlin! Justin Wood runs the Wood Lab at Indiana University, and his lab's tagline is "building newborn minds in virtual worlds." In this episode, we discuss his work comparing the visual cognition of newborn chicks and AI models. He uses a controlled-rearing technique with natural chicks, whereby the chicks are raised from birth in completely controlled visual environments. That way, Justin can present designed visual stimuli to test what kinds of visual abilities chicks have or can immediately learn. Then he can building models and AI agents that are trained on the same data as the newborn chicks. The goal is to use the models to better understand natural visual intelligence, and use what we know about natural visual intelligence to help build systems that better emulate biological organisms. We discuss some of the visual abilities of the chicks and what he's found using convolutional neural networks. Beyond vision, we discuss his work studying the development of collective behavior, which compares chicks to a model that uses CNNs, reinforcement learning, and an intrinsic curiosity reward function. All of this informs the age-old nature (nativist) vs. nurture (empiricist) debates, which Justin believes should give way to embrace both nature and nurture. Wood lab. Related papers: Controlled-rearing studies of newborn chicks and deep neural networks. Development of collective behavior in newborn artificial agents. A newborn embodied Turing test for view-invariant object recognition. Justin mentions these papers: Untangling invariant object recognition (Dicarlo & Cox 2007) 0:00 - Intro 5:39 - Origins of Justin's current research 11:17 - Controlled rearing approach 21:52 - Comparing newborns and AI models 24:11 - Nativism vs. empiricism 28:15 - CNNs and early visual cognition 29:35 - Smoothness and slowness 50:05 - Early biological development 53:27 - Naturalistic vs. highly controlled 56:30 - Collective behavior in animals and machines 1:02:34 - Curiosity and critical periods 1:09:05 - Controlled rearing vs. other developmental studies 1:13:25 - Breaking natural rules 1:16:33 - Deep RL collective behavior 1:23:16 - Bottom-up and top-down

"The World Bank and its president have been doing an important, constructive job the past five years," announced The Southern Illinoisan in 1973. "IMF assistance [has] put Jamaica well on the road to recovery," reported The Winnipeg Sun in 1982. The Trans-Pacific Partnership “could be a legacy-making achievement” for Barack Obama, The New York Times suggested in 2015. These are the dominant narratives surrounding so-called "development" initiatives, whether structural adjustment loans or "free trade" deals. Agreements like these, we're often told, have been and continue to be essential to the economic maturation and societal improvement of poor countries. Countries that shift from nationalized to privatized industry and land, so called liberalize trade policies, and institute a host of other free-market reforms are destined for greater efficiency, reduced poverty, and that much-coveted "Seat At The Table" in the global economy. But, all too often, this isn't the effect of these initiatives. What we don't tend to hear about is how economic development "agreements" engineered by wealthy countries like the US — e.g., IMF loans, NAFTA, or the TPP — don't promote, but rather reverse, the development of exploited countries. Media minimize not only these initiatives' destructive effects on economies, labor, and social programs in service of U.S. corporations, but also their relationship to the punitive U.S. immigration system, and their extensive role in mass global displacement. This episode – the last installment of our three-part series on media narratives about immigration (listen to Part I here and Part II here!) – explores the displacing effects of "development" and "free trade" deals, as well as their connection to an increasingly militarized immigration "deterrence" machine, asking why capital is allowed to move freely, but people aren't. Our guest is Dylan Sullivan.

This week we have a guest with a keen understanding of a film: Dr. Tyler Anbinder joins us to talk about Gangs of New York, Martin Scorsese's 2002 epic that about the rise of the United States in the mid-nineteenth century. Tyler is not only an expert on the histories of New York City and of immigration, but served as an advisor for the film. He was, in this case, an actual historian at the movies. We talk about a range of topics: 19th century politics, immigration, nativism, race, the Civil War, New York, and of course, his experiences with the film itself. We also got a chance to touch on his upcoming book, and I hope to have him back on next year to talk about that. Really thrilled to have him on the podcast and I hope you dig the talk.About our guest:Tyler Anbinder is a specialist in nineteenth-century American politics and the history of immigration and ethnicity in American life. His most recent book, City of Dreams (2016), is a history of immigrant life in New York City from the early 1600s to the present.  Before that, in 2001, he published Five Points, a history of nineteenth-century America's most infamous immigrant slum, focusing in particular on tenement life, inter-ethnic relations, and ethnic politics.  His first book, Nativism and Slavery (1992), analyzed the role of the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic Know Nothing party on the political crisis that led to the Civil War. Professor Anbinder has won fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities and held the Fulbright Thomas Jefferson Chair in American History at the University of Utrecht. He has won awards for his scholarship from the Organization of American Historians, the Columbia University School of Journalism, and the journal Civil War History. He also served as a historical consultant to Martin Scorsese for the making of The Gangs of New York. His forthcoming book, to be published in March 2024 by Little, Brown, is entitled Plentiful Country: The Great Potato Famine and the Making of Irish New York. That project's digital history component, created with research assistance from more than two dozen GW students, has already been completed and can be found at http://beyondragstoriches.org.

Immigration law should "stop punishing innocent young people brought to the country through no fault of their own by their parents," the Obama White House stated in 2013. "Migrant Caravan Continues North, Defying Mexico and U.S.," The New York Times warned in 2018. "Biden Administration Invites Ordinary Americans to Help Settle Refugees," NPR announced in early 2023. For over a century, U.S. policy and media have distinguished between supposedly different types of immigrants. There are refugees, who are fleeing political persecution, and migrants, who are crossing a border for reasons that aren't necessarily so noble. There are deserving immigrants, who are upwardly mobile and law-abiding. And there are undeserving immigrants, who are tax-dodging gang members. It may be easy to take this hierarchy of displaced people for granted, as it's become so commonplace in U.S. immigration discourse. But there's nothing natural or organic about it. These distinctions––between, for example, "refugee" and "migrant" –– are historically informed by racism, gendered notions of labor and a superficial, ideological distinction between negative and positive rights. The plight of certain immigrants is instrumentalized and prioritized over others, depending on their proximity to contemporary notions of whiteness, their ability to create cheap labor, and their utility to combating the spread of dangerous leftwing ideologies like anarchism and socialism. This episode – Part 2 of our three-part series on media narratives about immigration (listen to Part I here!) – examines the U.S. government's pattern of arbitrarily categorizing displaced people as some version of "good" or "bad." We'll look at how these distinctions are informed by, and often obfuscate, the U.S.'s global relations and imperialist expansion, and how the policies behind these categories turn people seeking safety and stability into geopolitical pawns. Our guest is writer, historian and professor, Dr. Rachel Ida Buff.

EPSIODE 89 | JBS BS: The John Birch Society History is full of those who became tyrants or aspired to become one. Even in a country like the United States in the fairly enlightened 20th century, there were those who thought that, well, actually, their vision of how things should be was the best one, and that they should probably just be in charge. And if you opposed them, they said all sorts of disagreeable things about you. And sometimes they just outright lied. Welcome to the John Birch Society, where anything and everything goes in the life and death struggle against international Communism. And they are kind of the foundation of today's far right. Like what we do? Then buy us a beer or three via our page on Buy Me a Coffee. #ConspiracyClearinghouse #sharingiscaring #donations #support #buymeacoffee You can also SUBSCRIBE to this podcast. Review us here or on IMDb! SECTIONS 02:10 - Candy-Coated Commie Hater - Candy maker Robert Welch Jr. was a smart guy, but also a hardcore Baptist and rabid anti-Communist 04:37 - Birch the Baptist Spy - Angry Baptist zealot John Birch became a spy in China during WWII, getting killed by Communists just after Japan surrendered; Welch was inspired, founding the John Birch Society in 1958 along with Fred Koch, Robert Waring Stoddard, Harry Lynde Bradley and anti-Semite Revilo P. Oliver, who went pretty much full Nazi later on 09:32 - Red Scares - Marxism's beginnings, the First Red Scare (1919-1920), bans and deportations, the Immigration Act of 1924, the Second Red Scare (1947-1958), loyalty oaths, the Communist Party outlawed, the Black List 15:04 - JBS BS - Conspiracy theories aplenty, America was "great" in the year 1900, created the water fluoridation freakout, Dr. Strangelove, membership grew while Welch got weirder, other far righter groups not so supportive, Barry Goldwater set the stage for Reagan, the Soviet Negro Republic pamphlet 23:28 - Go Your Own Way - The Birchers started to lose supporters in the 70s and 80s, the ultra-conservative US Taxpayers Party splits off and then becomes the Constitution Party, the American Heritage Party split from them and then became the Christian Liberty Party - both foundational to the Tea Party movement 29:48 - Fellow Travelers - Jim Gilchrist is a fan of the American Heritage Party, so is Alex Jones lapdog Jerome Corsi, who eats heartily from the conspiracy buffet; the JBS pushes Agenda 21 CTs, keeps records on political voting records; some think Trumpism is basically Bircherism Music by Fanette Ronjat More Info:  Who Was John Birch? - 1961 Time Magazine article Robert Welch, Founder of Birch Society, Dies at 85 The New American (the JBS magazine) JBS Freedom Index The Constitution Party website Christian Liberty Party website America at the Turn of the Century: A Look at the Historical Context The John Birchers' Tea Party Tea party: Dark side of conservatism on Poltico The Tea Party, the John Birch Society, and the Fear of "Mob Rule" The Tea Party Movement as a Modern Incarnation of Nativism in the United States and Its Role in American Electoral Politics, 2009-2014 paper The John Birch Society Is Back Flight from reason - Thomas Patterson looks at the threat to Democracy in ‘How America Lost Its Mind' Today's right-wing conspiracy theory mentality can be traced back to the John Birch Society Today's Paranoid Right Has Surpassed the John Birch Society It Didn't Start with Trump: The Decades-Long Saga of How the GOP Went Crazy How the John Birch Society radicalized the American Right The fringe group that broke the GOP's brain — and helped the party win elections on Vox American Psychosis: A Historical Investigation of How the Republican Party Went Crazy by David Corn Robert Evans's Behind the Bastards podcast Behind the Bastards episodes about the John Birch Society:  Part One & Part Two Follow us on social for extra goodies: Facebook Twitter Other Podcasts by Derek DeWitt DIGITAL SIGNAGE DONE RIGHT - Winner of a 2022 Gold Quill Award, 2022 Gold MarCom Award, 2021 AVA Digital Award Gold, 2021 Silver Davey Award, 2020 Communicator Award of Excellence, and on numerous top 10 podcast lists.  PRAGUE TIMES - A city is more than just a location - it's a kaleidoscope of history, places, people and trends. This podcast looks at Prague, in the center of Europe, from a number of perspectives, including what it is now, what is has been and where it's going. It's Prague THEN, Prague NOW, Prague LATER

"What one photo from the border tells us about the evolving migrant crisis," The Washington Post reveals. "The U.S. immigration crisis through the eyes of a border town mayor," reports Boston's NPR station. "Everyone can now agree – the US has a border crisis," proclaims CNN. There's a seemingly endless stream of warnings in news media that the US is being met with a "crisis" at the US-Mexico border. This crisis, according to the press—whether it's called a "border crisis," "migrant crisis," "immigration crisis," or some variant thereof—is the movement of people away from countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, and elsewhere, toward the United States. This phenomenon will supposedly distort, strain, and burden the US labor market, social services, housing, and economy in general. But, contrary to media framings, the movement of people isn't per se a "crisis." Nothing is inherently harmful about the movement of human beings from one place to another. The "crisis," instead, is the militarized and inhumane response to the movement of surplus and unwanted populations; it's US policy toward the people, especially from the Global South, who seek refuge here. It's the history of imperialist violence, the existence and enforcement of the border, and the deflection of responsibility away from the US, and onto the dehumanized and demonized asylum seekers. On this episode, part one of a three-part episode on immigration, we explore media's World War Z-conjuring "border crisis" narrative, looking at how it obscures the US's role in creating the conditions so many people have no choice but to flee; how it reinforces false notions about immigrants and asylum seekers; and how it retcons the wealthiest, most powerful country in world history into an innocent victim, too fragile to support the people in dire need of escaping the wanton violence that very country helped unleash. Our guest is Boston University assistant professor Dr. Heba Gowayed.

On Sundays this summer, we're bringing you some of our favorite episodes from the archives. We'll continue to do new episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Happy summer! /// It's July 10th. This day in 1844, riots and violence are breaking out in Philadelphia as nativist groups coalesce around anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment. Jody, NIki, and Kellie discuss how the riots wrapped up fears about schooling, economic competition, religion — and marked a moment in which Nativism started to wield political power. Sign up for our newsletter! Find out more at thisdaypod.com And don't forget about Oprahdemics, hosted by Kellie, out now from Radiotopia. This Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX. Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories. If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.com Get in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Our website is thisdaypod.com Follow us on social @thisdaypod Our team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu interviews Olivia Harrison, author of a new book entitled, Natives Against Nativism, which takes on the appropriation of the figure of the “native,” or in the French case, the “indigene” to serve progressive and indeed revolutionary causes, but also its appropriation by the alt-right both in France and internationally to drive a reactionary program against so-called anti-white racism. The conversation covers a lot of ground, from a discussion of the basic premises of the French Republic, to unpacking the long history of anti-racist struggles in France, to the period of the late 1960s and 1970s, where we see in particular the figure of the Palestinian, and of the American Indian, play enormous roles in the radical imaginary. Olivia discusses the ways things like the “Great Replacement Theory” signal a convergence of US and French anti-right “nativism,” and use photographs, films, and poetry to show the complexity of this terrain, perhaps best illustrated by the collaboration between French avant-garde film maker Jean-Luc Godard and the pre-eminent Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish. Olivia C. Harrison is Associate Professor of French and Comparative Literature at the University of Southern California. Her research focuses on postcolonial North African, Middle Eastern, and French literature and film, with a particular emphasis on transcolonial affiliations between writers and intellectuals from the Global South. Her publications include Natives against Nativism: Antiracism and Indigenous Critique in Postcolonial France (University of Minnesota Press, 2023), Transcolonial Maghreb: Imagining Palestine in the Era of Decolonization (Stanford University Press, 2016), and essays on Maghrebi literature, Beur and banlieue cultural production, and postcolonial theory. With Teresa Villa-Ignacio, she is the editor of Souffles-Anfas: A Critical Anthology from the Moroccan Journal of Culture and Politics (Stanford University Press, 2016) and translator of Hocine Tandjaoui's proem, Clamor/Clameur (Litmus Press, 2021). www.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.comhttps://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20

In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu interviews Olivia Harrison, author of a new book entitled, Natives Against Nativism, which takes on the appropriation of the figure of the “native,” or in the French case, the “indigene” to serve progressive and indeed revolutionary causes, but also its appropriation by the alt-right both in France and internationally to drive a reactionary program against so-called anti-white racism. The conversation covers a lot of ground, from a discussion of the basic premises of the French Republic, to unpacking the long history of anti-racist struggles in France, to the period of the late 1960s and 1970s, where we see in particular the figure of the Palestinian, and of the American Indian, play enormous roles in the radical imaginary. Olivia discusses the ways things like the “Great Replacement Theory” signal a convergence of US and French anti-right “nativism,” and use photographs, films, and poetry to show the complexity of this terrain, perhaps best illustrated by the collaboration between French avant-garde film maker Jean-Luc Godard and the pre-eminent Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish. Olivia C. Harrison is Associate Professor of French and Comparative Literature at the University of Southern California. Her research focuses on postcolonial North African, Middle Eastern, and French literature and film, with a particular emphasis on transcolonial affiliations between writers and intellectuals from the Global South. Her publications include Natives against Nativism: Antiracism and Indigenous Critique in Postcolonial France (University of Minnesota Press, 2023), Transcolonial Maghreb: Imagining Palestine in the Era of Decolonization (Stanford University Press, 2016), and essays on Maghrebi literature, Beur and banlieue cultural production, and postcolonial theory. With Teresa Villa-Ignacio, she is the editor of Souffles-Anfas: A Critical Anthology from the Moroccan Journal of Culture and Politics (Stanford University Press, 2016) and translator of Hocine Tandjaoui's proem, Clamor/Clameur (Litmus Press, 2021). www.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.comhttps://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20

On today's episode of Speaking Out of Place we talk with Olivia Harrison, author of a new book entitled, Natives Against Nativism: Antiracism and Indigenous Critique in Postcolonial France, which takes on the appropriation of the figure of the “native” to serve progressive and indeed revolutionary causes, but also its appropriation by the alt-right both in France and internationally to drive a reactionary program against so-called anti-white racism.Our conversation covers a lot of ground, from a discussion of the basic premises of the French Republic, to unpacking the long history of anti-racist struggles in France, to the period of the late 1960s and 1970s, where we see in particular the figure of the Palestinian, and of the American Indian, play enormous roles in the radical imaginary.We then turn to the ways things like the “Great Replacement Theory” signal a convergence of US and French anti-right “nativism,” and use photographs, films, and poetry to show the complexity of this terrain, perhaps best illustrated by the collaboration between French avant-garde film maker Jean-Luc Godard and the pre-eminent Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish.Olivia C. Harrison is Associate Professor of French and Comparative Literature at the University of Southern California. Her research focuses on postcolonial North African, Middle Eastern, and French literature and film, with a particular emphasis on transcolonial affiliations between writers and intellectuals from the Global South. Her publications include Natives against Nativism: Antiracism and Indigenous Critique in Postcolonial France (University of Minnesota Press, 2023), Transcolonial Maghreb: Imagining Palestine in the Era of Decolonization (Stanford University Press, 2016), and essays on Maghrebi literature, Beur and banlieue cultural production, and postcolonial theory. With Teresa Villa-Ignacio, she is the editor of Souffles-Anfas: A Critical Anthology from the Moroccan Journal of Culture and Politics (Stanford University Press, 2016) and translator of Hocine Tandjaoui's proem, Clamor/Clameur (Litmus Press, 2021). 

FAITH KILLERS' SERIES: #8 — RACISM, TRIBALISM, NATVISM, ETHNOCENTRISM, NEPOTISM, ETC., AS KILLERS OF FAITH IN GOD The world system was built on discrimination and oppression of the weak by the strong. Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of God on earth to preach the heavenly gospel of God's love for human beings: this gospel warns against discrimination and promotes equality of all human beings. The broadcast asks believers not to discriminate as doing so poisons and kills faith in God. ——— Are you aware that on our YouTube channel, you can watch more than 100 videos (videos you can share, use in Sunday schools, teach others, and evangelize) in high definition? Please click on the link below to subscribe. The subscription is free. https://www.youtube.com/channel/WorldEvangel?sub_confirmation=1 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/worldevangel/message

The Republican Party is gripped by a hatred of immigrants. But geographer Reece Jones argues it has not always been so. Instead, one man, the late John Tanton, was responsible for making nativism appear a central concern of conservatives, by propagating scores of anti-immigrant organizations, some which eventually helped staff the Trump Administration. And, as Jones points out, Tanton's nativism originated from an unexpected place: the environmental movements of the Sixties. (Encore presentation.) Resources: Reece Jones, White Borders: The History of Race and Immigration in the United States from Chinese Exclusion to the Border Wall Beacon Press, 2021 The post Nativism, Immigration, and Environmentalism appeared first on KPFA.

Weaponizing Nomenclature: Nationalism Nativism and Patriotism

Hallowed Waters's Podcast host Matthew Supinski welcomes Pennsylvania environmental activist, blogger of the PA Wild Trout Network and PA/ MT fly fishing guide Richard as they discuss their love for big brown trout and the need for their protection. Brown trout life survival strategies of big spawning year-class fish, their need for protection during their migrations and niche predatory explorations from small streams to bigger rivers is explored in depth. The new trend in “Nativism” and the disdain for introduced/ non- native species like European brown trout is discussed and clarified candidly by host and guest. Don't miss this one if you love big brown trout! #hallowedwatersjournal #hallowedwaterspodcasts #wildbrowntrout #flyfishing #Pennsylvaniawildtrout #montanawildtrout #salmotrutta #salmosalar #limstonespringcreeks #Perrycounty #yellowstoneriver #paradisevalleyspringcreeks #huntingbigbrowntrout #nativism #Germanbrowntrout #michiganbrowntrout #orvis #gloomisnrx #orvismission #abelreels #harelinedubbin #maxima #varivas #browntroutatlanticsalmonnexus #brorjonsson #ecologyofatlanticsalmonabdbrowntrout #ecology #troutmigration --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hallowedwaters/message

Kyle Vogt from Gamasutra joins Lexman to discuss the Lanfranc mural controversy, the mystery of magnetizations in wood, and the trend of nativism in the video game industry.

It's July 10th. This day in 1844, riots and violence are breaking out in Philadelphia as nativist groups coalesce around anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment. Jody, NIki, and Kellie discuss how the riots wrapped up fears about schooling, economic competition, religion — and marked a moment in which Nativism started to wield political power. Sign up for our newsletter! Find out more at thisdaypod.com And don't forget about Oprahdemics, hosted by Kellie, out now from Radiotopia. This Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX. Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories. If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.com Get in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Our website is thisdaypod.com Follow us on social @thisdaypod Our team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

Replacement theory -- the racist ideology that claims elites are abetting immigrants to disempower or eliminate native white people -- has been around in one form or another for a long time. The current iteration has gone mainstream, leading to widespread condemnation of some Republican politicians and conservative commentators who have embraced the theory's central premises. Fear and suspicion of foreigners underpins nativism, and America's first nativist movement took hold in the 1850s. Who were the Know Nothings? They weren't around for long but they left their mark. 

For Greenlight's first poetry event of 2022, we welcomed Indonesian American poet Cynthia Dewi Oka and acclaimed poet and fiction writer Jenny Zhang (Sour Heart) to share, discuss, and celebrate Oka's third collection, Fire Is Not a Country. Oka's poems track how the energies of migration, exploitation, patriarchal violation, and political repression shape and spar with familial love and obligation. Jenny read as well—sweet and cutting poems from her collection My Baby First Birthday—and together she and Oka waxed affectionately and probingly on the meanings of fire, “the little knives that we are made of,” and the connections between a country, the body, and “how okay we are supposed to be.” (Recorded January 11, 2022)

Join contributors to the special edition of Logic Magazine, Beacons, for a discussion on Black freedom and technology. What would it mean to take the Black internet seriously? How do we call in Black studies scholars to imagining technologies of black freedoms in addition to grappling with the racial regimes wrought by artificial intelligence and machine learning models? The dominant approach to mis/disinformation is policing, reporting and suspending individual users but what if we oriented towards abolition and affirming black joy? What can the black radical tradition offer in addressing new modes of surveillance and social control that begin from black indigineity instead of reinscribing the nation state? Contributors to special edition of Logic Magazine, in partnership with We Be Imagining, Beacons: Andre Brock and SA Smythe will be in conversation with Zoé Samudzi. Moderated by J. Khadijah Abdurahman. Get the new issue of Logic Magazine, Beacons, here: https://logicmag.io --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speakers: SA Smythe (they / them) is a poet, translator, and assistant professor of Black European Cultural Studies, Contemporary Mediterranean Studies, and Black Trans Poetics at UCLA, where they research relational aspects of Black belonging beyond borders. They are a Senior Fellow at theCenter for Applied Transgender Studies and editor of Troubling the Grounds: Global Configurations of Blackness, Nativism, and Indigeneity, a special issue for Postmodern Culture. Winner of the 2022 Rome Prize for Modern Italian Studies, Smythe is currently based between Rome and Tongva Land (Los Angeles). André Brock (@docdre) is an Associate Professor in the School of Literature, Media & Communication at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Brock is one of the preeminent scholars of Black Cyberculture. His work bridges Science and Technology Studies and Critical Discourse Analysis, showing how the communicative affordances of online media align with those of Black communication practices. His scholarship includes published articles on racial representations in videogames, black women and weblogs, whiteness, blackness, and digital technoculture, as well as groundbreaking research on Black Twitter. He is the author of Distributed Blackness: African-American Cyberculture. Zoé Samudzi has a PhD in Sociology from the University of California, San Francisco where she is a postdoctoral fellow in the ACTIONS Program. She is co-author of As Black as Resistance, guest editor of the September-October 2021 issue of The Funambulist titled "Against Genocide," and a writer whose work has appeared in The New Republic, The New Inquiry, Hyperallergic, Jewish Currents, and other outlets. J. Khadijah Abdurahman (she/they/any) is an abolitionist whose research focus is predictive analytics in the child welfare system. They are the founder of We Be Imagining, a public interest technology project at Columbia University's INCITE Center and The American Assembly's Democracy and Trust Program. WBI draws on the Black radical tradition to develop public technology through infusing academic discourse with the performance arts in partnership with community based organizations. Khadijah is co-leading the Otherwise School: Tools and Techniques of Counter-Fascism alongside Sucheta Ghoshal's Inquilab at the University of Washington, HCDE. Their report examining the role of tech in mass atrocities in Ethiopia is forthcoming. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This event is sponsored by Logic Magazine and Haymarket Books. Watch the live event recording: https://youtu.be/kiuv7W4gNqo Buy books from Haymarket: www.haymarketbooks.org Follow us on Soundcloud: soundcloud.com/haymarketbooks

Muhammad Ali Mojaradi (@sharqhzadeh) is the creator of Persian Poetics (@persianpoetics on Instagram) Check out his video, "Debunking Fake Rumi"  Support  www.patreon.com/east_podcast

Glossary for DiQ ep 7 series 3 – Jan Werner MüllerWho was Alexis de Tocqueville?(pg. 1 tocquevillian question of the transcript or 00:1:08)French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) traveled to the United States in 1831 to study its prisons and returned with a wealth of broader observations that he codified in “Democracy in America” (1835), one of the most influential books of the 19th century. With its trenchant observations on equality and individualism, Tocqueville's work remains a valuable explanation of America to Europeans and of Americans to themselves. What is nativism?(pg. 1 of the transcript or 00:4:42)Nativism represents the political idea that people who were born in a country are more important than immigrants. Source. Who is Marine Le Pen?(pg. 3 of the transcript or 00:10:03)Marine Le Pen, French politician who succeeded her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, as leader of the National Front (later National Rally) party in 2011. She was that party's candidate in the 2017 French presidential election. In 1998 she joined the administrative apparatus of the National Front, which had been founded by her father in 1972 and was the main right-wing opposition to France's mainstream conservative parties. She served as the director of the party's legal affairs until 2003, when she became the National Front's vice president. The following year she made a successful run for a seat in the European Parliament where she joined her father in that body's nonaligned bloc. As Le Pen emerged from her father's shadow to become a national figure in her own right, she distanced herself from some of his and the party's more extreme views. While she embraced the National Front's established anti-immigration stance, she rebranded the party's traditional Euroscepticism as French nationalism and she was a vocal critic of the anti- Semitism that has marginalized the party in the past.In June 2018 Le Pen announced that the National Front would change its name to Rassemblement National (National Rally), in an apparent effort to distance the party from its overtly neofascist and anti-Semitic past. The National Rally topped the field in EU parliamentary elections in 2019, and opinion polling indicated that they were likely to carry that momentum into French regional elections in 2021. The party performed far below expectations in the first round of balloting, however, in an election that was characterized by extremely low voter turnout. Source What was the Fairness Doctrine?(Page 6 of the transcript or 00:25:14)U.S. communications policy (1949–87) formulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Required licensed radio and television broadcasters to present fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues of interest to their communities, including by granting equal airtime to opposing candidates for public office. The fairness doctrine was never without its opponents, however, many of whom perceived the equal airtime requirement as an infringement of the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.In 1987 the FCC formally repealed the fairness doctrine but maintained both the editorial and personal-attack provisions, which remained in effect until 2000. In addition, until they were finally repealed by the commission in 2011, more than 80 media rules maintained language that implemented the doctrine. Source Who was John Dewey?(page 7 of the transcript or 00:28:02)John Dewey (1859–1952) was one of American pragmatism's early founders, along with Charles Sanders Peirce and William James, and arguably the most prominent American intellectual for the first half of the twentieth century. Dewey's educational theories and experiments had a global reach, his psychological theories had a sizeable influence in that growing science, and his writings about democratic theory and practice deeply influenced debates in academic and practical quarters for decades. Dewey also developed extensive and often systematic views in ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, aesthetics, and philosophy of religion. In addition to academic life, Dewey comfortably wore the mantle of public intellectual, infusing public issues with lessons found through philosophy. He spoke on topics of broad moral significance, such as human freedom, economic alienation, race relations, women's suffrage, war and peace, human freedom, and educational goals and methods. Typically, discoveries made via public inquiries were integrated back into his academic theories, and aided their revision. This practice-theory-practice rhythm powered every area of Dewey's intellectual enterprise, and perhaps explains why his philosophical theories are still discussed, criticized, adapted, and deployed in many academic and practical arenas.  Source Who is Elizabeth Anderson?(page 7 of the transcript or 00:30:40)American Philosopher specializing in moral, social and political philosophy, feminist theory, social epistemology, and the philosophy of economics and the social sciences. She is particularly interested in exploring the interactions of social science with moral and political theory, how we learn to improve our value judgments, the epistemic functions of emotions and democratic deliberation, and issues of race, gender, and equality. Source

Ethan, Andrew and Jonathan examine the Roots and Legacy of American Nativism. Thanks for keeping history dope.

George revves his truck while Chuck does his best Who impersonation.  Episode 3 covers the divide of the right and how Donald Trump's Nativism is a product of previous iterations started by the John Birch Society.

A dangerous ideology growing within the party.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Can the U.S. still be considered a colonialist country? Have you ever heard of the dozens of territories owned by the United States? This week three fellow U.S. Virgin Islanders (Tarik McMillan, Lileth Grouby, and Brigitte Berry) join the podcast to address the experiences of colonial citizens of the United States (residents of U.S. territories.) We're talking nativism, systemic racism, oppression, and whether or not self-determination is still something we should fight for in 2020.  Join the conversation by using #gooduptuesday on social media or tagging @gooduppod. Support the show (http://www.patreon.com/gooduppodcast)

Hassnae Bouazza was born in Morocco. She didn't speak a word of Dutch when she immigrated to the Netherlands, though today it's effectively her mother tongue. The Dutch government now insists that would-be immigrants like Bouazza pass a Dutch language "entrance exam." Are Dutch officials using language to keep "undesirables" out? Or is speaking the local language an essential part of living in the Netherlands? Photo by Patrick Cox. Music by Blue Dot Sessions, Podington Bear, Atisound, and Gridded. Thanks to Sara Wallace Goodman, Ben Coates, Jeremy Helton, Liesbeth Siers, Tracey Keij-Denton, Jos Beelen, Carol Zall, Clark Boyd, Laura Rumbley, and Rose Stories in Amsterdam. Read a transcript of this episode here.

Are we born or made? The question of nature versus nurture is an old one but advancements in genetics and twin studies have given us new insight into this age old question. Genes are part of who we are but it is our environment which not only shapes our behaviour, but also determines how genes behave and whether they even turn on or off. We explore the state of the art understanding of how genes and environment together influence who we are and who we might become. Show notesSir Francis GaltonHistory of eugenicsBlueprint: How DNA makes us who we areThe top replicated findings from behaviour geneticsNature vs. nurture in psychologyWhat is CRISPR?https://www.facebook.com/thehereandnowpodcast/ https://twitter.com/herenowpodcast emailthehereandnow@gmail.com  Royalty Free Music from https://audiohub.com Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thehereandnowpodcast)

It is often said that with the election of Donald Trump nativism was raised from the dead. After all, here was a president who organized his campaign around a rhetoric of unvarnished racism and xenophobia. Among his first acts on taking office was to issue an executive order blocking Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. But although his actions may often seem unprecedented, they are not as unusual as many people believe. This story doesn't begin with Trump. For decades, Republicans and Democrats alike have employed xenophobic ideas and policies, declaring time and again that “illegal immigration” is a threat to the nation's security, wellbeing, and future. The profound forces of all-American nativism have, in fact, been pushing politics so far to the right over the last forty years that, for many people, Trump began to look reasonable. As Daniel Denvir argues, issues as diverse as austerity economics, free trade, mass incarceration, the drug war, the contours of the post 9/11 security state, and, yes, Donald Trump and the Alt-Right movement are united by the ideology of nativism, which binds together assorted anxieties and concerns into a ruthless political project. All-American Nativism: How the Bipartisan War on Immigrants Explains Politics as We Know It (Verso, 2020) provides a powerful and impressively researched account of the long but often forgotten history that gave us Donald Trump. Join us to hear Daniel Denvir lay out the grim history and current state of US immigration politics and policy. Stephen Pimpare is Senior Lecturer in the Politics & Society Program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. He is the author of The New Victorians (New Press, 2004), A People's History of Poverty in America (New Press, 2008), winner of the Michael Harrington Award, and Ghettos, Tramps and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen (Oxford, 2017). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Adam sits down with Dr. Luke Ritter to discuss his forthcoming book “The Origins of Nativism in the Antebellum West”.  Dr. Ritter completed his Ph.D. in American History at Saint Louis University, and currently teaches at Troy University. We spend a few minutes talking about his personal journey that lead to his interest in human behavior and American History. And, since I've never written a book, we talk about that process a little before we get into the concept of Nativism. I think this interview really challenged my thoughts on immigration. The conclusion applies some of those lessons to our current immigration situation. I hope you'll listen, and learn something new like I have.Tedx Talk on YouTubeTwitter @LukeRitter6Troy University profileIf you like what I'm doing here, please rate me on Apple Podcasts, five stars would be AWESOME.  You can find me at these places • adamdrinkwater.com • Patreon • Instagram • TwitterSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/adamdrinkwater)

An analysis of the phenomenon of Donald Trump's presidency against the backdrop and contrast of the European Enlightenment's influence on the Founders of the United States. This lecture analyses the phenomenon of Donald Trump's presidency against the backdrop and contrast of the European Enlightenment's influence on the Founders of the United States. It also explains why his stark antithesis to Enlightenment values was a winning strategy in the 2016 presidential election and how it resonates with a shift from liberalism to populism, nativism, and authoritarianism. It also examines political forces in the U.S. that are opposing Trump as he ramps up his campaign for a second term.

Donald Trump has repeatedly emphasized the threat from international trade, especially from China. But did Chinese trade help raise the salience of his concerns or even help elect him? Trade may matter even if views on trade don't drive the public, because trade shocks also affect citizens' cultural and racial views. James Bisbee finds that citizens living close to businesses affected by Chinese import competition developed more negative attitudes about trade, immigration, & US global leadership. Francesco Ruggieri finds that Chinese import competition did not change attitudes on trade, but did consistently help Republican candidates since 2008 by increasing negative views of racial and religious minorities. Photo Credit: Cliff under CC BY 2.0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/3550720936

Eamon is joined by Swedish-based journalist Philip O'Connor to discuss life in Sweden ahead of the upcoming election in which the rise of nativism looks set to play a key part. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/the-stand-with-eamon-dunphy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

8:00pm PTRN - Lunatic Mondays Why should Fridays have all the fun? Go crazy on Mondays with Laura Gonzalez on 'Lunatic Mondays'..... Anything can happen!!! Tonight our guest is: Akaxe Yotzin chatting with Laura Gonzalez about Mesoamerican (Aztec*) Culture and Philosophy. Join us on the chat room or by phone to ask your questions!! (347) 308-8222

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Explore the connections between the Know-Nothings, a nativist political party from the 1850s, and the rise of Donald Trump in the 2016 primaries.