White Flight and the Internet

Facebook, likewise, is imposing the right limits—it’s almost New Victorian in that regard. It is a connection engine that successfully mirrors how most of us want to live our lives. (Most people live in suburbs for a reason.) If the overall trend on the Internet is the individual user’s loss of control as corporations make money off information you unwittingly provide, Facebook is offering a way to get some of that control back. In Facebook’s vision of the Web, you, the user, are in control of your persona.

“About Facebook”, Michael Hirschorn, theAtlantic.com, October 2007

Parallel transportation networks—evolving out of the time-share aircraft companies such as Warren Buffett’s NetJets—will cater to this group, leapfrogging its members from one secure, well-appointed lily pad to the next.” That elite world is already largely in place, but Robb predicts that the middle class will soon follow suit, “forming suburban collectives to share the costs of security.” These “‘armored suburbs’ will deploy and maintain backup generators and communications links” and be patrolled by private militias “that have received corporate training and boast their own state-of-the-art emergency response systems.”

“Disaster Capitalism: The new economy of catastrophe”
Naomi Klein, Harpers Magazine, September 8, 2007 (There’s no public text but the link to Naomi Klein’s website is here.)

After reading these two pieces I was struck by an odd parallel. There has already been some controversy about trying to understand how social networking sites are reproducing class patterns. And, of course, there has been a lot of controversy about Net Neutrality, although that seems to have died down. Social networking has also been criticized for the superficiality of its connections.

What strikes me is that Hirschorn may be talking about the Internet version of the social process described in such frightening detail by Klein. Klein’s argument is that the very same ideological bias towards privatization has shaped both the Iraq War and the ongoing response to Katrina.

That seems obvious, if you have been reading about the contracts the Bush administration awarded a variety of companies in both places. “Shaw, Bechtel, CH2M Hill—all top contractors in Iraq—were handed contracts on the Gulf Coast to provide mobile homes to evacuees just ten days after the levees broke.” Klein notes, “Their contracts ended up totaling $3.4 billion, no open bidding required.” That”s just the tip of the melting iceberg.

Less obvious is the shopping cart full of privatization projects Klein details, from privatized “contract cities” outside of Atlanta to Blackwater’s growing mercenary army. Strangely enough, the same private firms guarding diplomats in Baghdad are now guarding wealthy suburbs in New Orleans. If Klein’s piece doesn’t make the hairs go up on your arm something is seriously wrong.

I am fairly certain that Hirschorn is not suggesting that Internet access be divided along class lines. (Klein reminds us that this has already happened in our medical system.) On the other hand, many have suggested recently that this sort of system– the more money you have the better your access– is inevitable. Indeed, it is already true, given the price difference between broad band and dial up. But Hirschorn’s piece hints that the very same racial and class impulses that created the suburb may well be finding expression in Facebook. Is this the start of white flight on the Internet?

Labor Takes a Seat in the Classroom

The resources to teach students about America’s storied labor history are there. It’s up to educators to connect young people to a story that could have a lasting impact. “You want the people who read history, young people or people of any age, to recognize their own power and to recognize themselves in history,” says [Howard] Zinn. “After all, most of the people who are going to be reading and studying history are not going to be business executives. They are going to be working for a living.”

Labor Takes a Seat in the Classroom
By Adam Doster

When I taught in a ‘brick and mortar’ classroom I was alway searching for ways to teach my students to ‘see’ class. (I have included a few of these assignments in the ‘Teaching Materials’ section of this site.) I would get them to use the American Fact Finder, for example, to create an economic history of their families and the communities in which they lived.

I would also get them to interview their parents and grandparents about education and work. At least in the short term, I think many did start to see the patterns of class mobility and stasis over the course of the last twenty or thirty years. Almost every semester a student would tell me that he or she saw their family’s history in an entirely new light.

Introducing Labor history into the classroom is another, perhaps less individualistic, way to teach class awareness. Doster offers several other examples of how we can put labor back into circulation as an important part of our heritage. There’s now an “American Labor Merit Badge,” for example. The Boy Scouts have a wiki, MeritBadge.org, where you can find a description of the requirements.

Doster also mentions, “Hardball and Handshakes,” a set of classroom activities that explore the reasons behind unions in professional sports. That can be found on the American Labor Studies Center website, along with information about Women and Labor, and a special section on Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers. among other things. The ALSC is in Troy, New York.

Israel Lobby

In this paper, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago’s Department of Political Science and Stephen M.Walt of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government contend that the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. The authors argue that although often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to Israel is due primarily to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” This paper goes on to describe the various activities that pro-Israel groups have undertaken in order to shift U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

One of the authors of this paper has acknowledged that “none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews.” In light of the paper’s errors, and its admitted lack of originality, Dershowitz asks why these professors would have chosen to publish a paper that does not meet their usual scholarly standards, especially given the risk – that should have been obvious to “realists” – that recycling these charges under their imprimatur of prominent authors would be featured, as they have been, on extremist websites. Dershowitz questions the authors claims that people who support Israel do not want “an open debate on issues involving Israel.” He renews his challenge to debate the issues.

Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt “Working Paper”
by Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School

I was listening to a recent Fresh Air, in which the host, Terri Gross, interviewed first Stephen Walt and then Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman was hopelessly inept. I think the reason is that his rhetorical tools are so blunt. He’s a practiced counter-puncher, but it was profoundly reflexive. He is seemingly so used to attacking antisemitism that he has not noticed that this is a very different sort of debate. Dershowitz’s rhetoric seems to share this same strategy.

I could not tell if he was simply attacking because that is what he always does or if he really believed that Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument about the “Israel lobby” is in fact a kind of Trojan Horse sneaking in some very old and ugly attitudes about Jews. After listening to Gross’s interview with Walt, it was hard to take any of either Dershowitz’s or Foxman’s contentions seriously. Walt carefully distinguishes between supporters of Israel, not all of whom are Jews, and the Jewish community, not all of whom support Israel to the same degree. Foxman thinks that distinction is in bad faith.

While noting that many prominent neo-conservatives are Jewish, Walt is careful to say that many are not and that it is not their ethnicity or religion that concerns him but their support of Israel. Foxman sees this as a meaningless distinction. Walt argues that many Americans have dual loyalties for a lot of reasons; we can even have dual citizenship. Foxman contends that this is a sneaky way to accuse Jews of disloyality, a classic antisemitic tactic. Ironically, both seemed to agree that more blatantly antisemitic writers have distorted Mearsheimer and Walt’s arguments.

Walt sounded fairly optimistic. It’s hard to debate these issues he says, and to call into question U.S. support of Israel and its central place in our Middle Eastern policy, but not impossible. They were able to publish first a long article and now a book. What I find most disturbing is that Foxman– and Dershowitz– ought to be helping to flesh out the debate over U.S. support of Israel. That’s not to minimize the fight against antisemitism, which is important. But I think they are fighting the wrong battle with Mearsheimer and Walt.