BIBI NETANYAHU'S WATERLOO

On October 7 the world woke up to videos of horrendous slaughter in Israel, executed by Hamas, the Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and military organization governing the Gaza Strip of the Israeli occupied Palestinian territories. While branding Hamas a terrorist organization, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu proclaimed that the country was now engaged in a full scale war, not only to retaliate for the brutal murder of 1,200 of its citizens and the capture of more than 240 hostages, but, in essence, for the country's survival. What he neglected to tell his listeners was that, in a real sense, Mr. Netanyahu is now also engaged in a battle for his personal political survival. Even though Bibi Netanyahu is the longest serving Israeli prime minister in the country's history, his survival as the dominant political figure does not necessarily reflect his popularity. He has been adept at adjusting to changing domestic political realities over time. Moreover, he has been more than willing to callously manipulate skirmishes with mostly Palestinian opponents into life or death situations for the Jewish state. In the process he managed to continually reinvent himself as the savior of the only democratic country in the Middle East. Well before the October 7 attacks, Netanyahu's popularity had already plummeted across the political spectrum. The Israeli press excoriated him, and former security officials and activists opposed to his judicial reform agenda called for him to step down. The outbreak of war has led to increased dislike for the prime minister and his government because of the general belief that it failed to follow up on security and intelligence indicators that could have prevented the massacre. Recent polling indicated that 86% of respondents hold the country's leadership responsible for the security failures that led to the surprise attack, and 56% of Israelis believe that the prime minister should resign. Netanyahu has been under indictment for breach of trust, bribery and fraud since 2019. If convicted, he could face up to 10 years in prison for bribery and a maximum of 3 years for fraud and breach of trust. Politically, his right wing government has attempted to pass judicial reform intended to weaken the Israeli Supreme Court and to make it more difficult to remove him from power. These attempts have sparked some of the largest public demonstrations in Israel's history. Given the theoretical possibility that he could be forced out of office if his popularity continues to drop, his political crisis raises the question of whether he could view prolonged military intervention as a way to cling to political survival. Since Israel is relatively isolated in the conflict with Hamas, it would stand to reason that its government would pay heed to suggestions from a diminishing number of unwavering international partners. These not so subtle recommendations issued by major players like President Joe Biden, who visited the country arguably at his own political peril, have largely been ignored. It may be an overstatement to suggest that the Israeli government should pay attention to our advice. Israel is, after all, an independent country. However, we may be less inclined to protect it if its government remains unresponsive. The argument can be made that its survival won't just be dependent on the outcome of this war. The U.S. has been its dominant supporter since its inception. Between 1951 and 2022 we have provided $225.2 billion in aid - more than to any other country since World War II. We have also used our U.N. Security Council veto power 42 times against resolutions condemning Israel. This is out of 83 times we used our veto. Nevertheless, Mr. Netanyahu has consistently refused to consider the advice of our most seasoned political operatives. He pointedly opposed the Iran nuclear deal pursued and agreed to under President Obama. The prime minister ran a multi-pronged sustained public campaign against it - not just in the international sphere, but inside the U.S. as well. (He managed to get President Trump to withdraw from it.) Our support for the establishment of a Palestinian state was also nixed. Netanyahu wanted a demilitarized Palestinian state and further expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. President Biden's proposal to "pause" the unrestricted cataclysmic attack on Gaza is also being ignore. For decades, U.S. Secretaries of State, peace envoys and politicians of all stripes have expressed their belief that Mr. Netanyahu never had an interest in pursuing peace. In fact, he actively runs campaigns inside our country, manipulating our electorate for his personal political benefit. Many stakeholders in Israel and the U.S. are finally getting tired of Bibi's narcissistic indifference to well intended advice. Influential voices from across the political spectrum, uttered from multiple, well developed, platforms, are beginning to characterize Bibi Netanyahu as the "worst leader in [Israel's] history." (e.g. Friedman et al). Several have suggested that "the sooner Israel replaces Netanyahu and his far-right allies with a true center-left/ center-right national unity government, the better chance that Biden will not have hitched his credibility and ours to a Netanyahu Israel that will never be able to fully help us to help it." In the mean time Netanyahu will continue to pursue a war of devastation in Gaza, nominally to eradicate Hamas, but actually slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinians who have nowhere to hide or go. He will likely continue this unscrupulous battle as long as he believes that the outcome may benefit him politically. The world is waiting for conscientious Israeli leaders to put a stop to this and to him. Like Napoleon a little more than two centuries ago, Israel's perennial prime minister might actually be fighting the battle that will ultimately end his imperial power. Theo Wierdsma

HATE SPEECH AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Many of us probably remember the old adage: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me." At a personal level, among kids growing up, there might be some truth to that. On a national level, however, evidence indicates that words, when inserted into inflammatory speech patterns can be dangerous and have historically preceded horrific genocides. We all had the unfortunate experience of suffering through the occasional uncontrolled rants from former President Donald Trump. For a while, after he left office, Mr. Trump's erratic behavior was masked, numbed and normalized by the political fatigue permeating the media and the public. But ever since he was issued multiple indictments, and since he decided to become the primary candidate for his party's nomination in next year's presidential contest, things changed. His words took a violent turn - like calling for former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley to be executed, mocking a potentially fatal assault on a congressional spouse and urging police to shoot shoplifters - suggest a line has been crossed. For the bulk of the time after he was elevated to national political prominence, Donald Trump openly expressed his disdain for migrants at our Southern border. He referred to them as rapists and criminals, suggested they were not people, but animals from shit hole countries, infesting our country like rats, and he actually suggested that border patrol agents should shoot migrants who attempted to illegally cross the border. More recently, during an interview for "The National Pulse," he claimed that undocumented immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country." This statement comes straight from Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf," which led to a Nazi rallying cry that translates to "Blood and Soil," replicated by Neo-Nazis and white nationalists during the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. His incendiary rants against judges adjudicating his multiple indictments in Georgia, Florida, New York and Washington have become daily occurrences. Mr. Trump routinely refers to prosecutors as "a team of thugs." He called one potential witness "a gutless pig," and accused African American judges of "racism." Apologists for the former president point to his First Amendment rights. However, "Freedom of Speech" is not unlimited. In "Brandenburg v. Ohio" the Supreme Court, in 1969, concluded that a call for violence or mob action could be punished if it "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." It seems reasonable to believe that many of Mr. Trump's utterances have crossed that line. Moreover, given his prominent position in our current political climate and the presence of his dedicated following, many of his public statements are outright dangerous. To quote well-known conservative attorney George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway, who worked for Trump from 2016 to 2020: "Donald Trump is profoundly psychopathic in the way he expresses himself, and he is getting worse!" Let's revisit some historical cases. The Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers, but with hate speech against a minority. Before Jews were driven out of their schools, their jobs, their homes; before the synagogues, shops and businesses were destroyed; and before there were ghettos and camps, words were used to stoke the fires of hate. Words were ultimately used as incitement to genocide. Six million perished. The Cambodian genocide was preceded by hateful discourse, systematically dubbing intellectuals, city dwellers, political opponents as well as ethnic and religious minorities as the enemy of the people. The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot killed 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians during the time he was in power, from 1975 to 1979. The 1994 genocide instigated by the majority Hutus in Rwanda took place after decades of hate speech, exacerbated ethnic tensions by spreading unfounded rumors, and dehumanizing the minority Tutsis. More than one million were killed in less than three months. The Srebrenica genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina was facilitated by constant nationalist propaganda demonizing the Bosnian Muslim population. Approximately 8,000 targeted Muslim men and boys were killed during a war which eventually ended up killing 100,000. The question often asked is: "Can it happen here?" People familiar with the historic backdrop to these and other genocides will most likely respond: "Unfortunately, yes, it can!" Verbal attacks on the judiciary have already resulted in a 400% increase in threats to federal judges - 4,000 reported incidences in 2020 alone. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the toxic combination of political polarization, anti-immigrant sentiment and the growth of technologies that help spread propaganda on line have grown the number of recognized hate groups to a historic high of 1020, a 30% increase over 2014. Some of us are still haunted by the Charlottesville rally during which torch bearing Neo-Nazis, white nationalists and members of the Ku Klux Klan were chanting: "Jews will not replace us." To which then President Trump responded: "There were fine people on both sides." You can't have it both ways. Respect for human dignity should not require a choice. Theo Wierdsma

DISCORD, DISCOMFORT AND POLITICAL HYPOCRISY

President Biden's recent change of heart about continuing the extension of the wall along the U.S./Mexican border raised a lot of eyebrows. During his presidential campaign three years ago, then candidate Joe Biden made it "perfectly clear" that during his administration not a single foot of wall would be built. A few weeks ago, he announced the release of funds to build up to 20 more miles of this controversial medieval barrier, claiming he had no choice but to release the money allocated during the Trump administration. When questioned about that decision, the president appeared openly uncomfortable. He confessed that he still believed that walls didn't work. Members of both political parties were quick to denounce his decision as hypocritical and politically expedient. However, social psychologists would refer to his reaction as a clear case of "cognitive dissonance," a mental conflict that occurs when beliefs don't reflect actions. The president displayed significant discomfort as he grappled with contradictory values, attitudes and perspectives about border control. As we move into next year's election cycle, many of us may experience similar uncomfortable episodes. Uncomfortable sensations which we will be motivated to reduce or explain away. To be clear, everyone experiences cognitive dissonance in their life. It happens when you hold two conflicting thoughts at the same time. You may crave hamburgers, even though you love cattle. You want to be healthy, but you don't exercise or eat a nutritious diet. You recognize that smoking or drinking too much is harmful to your health, but you do it anyway. You know you should drink eight glasses of water every day, but you drink coke instead, since it consists predominantly of water, and it tastes better. The link to politics seems obvious. We essentially have a two party system. Not every point of view is represented in isolation, like, for instance, in a proportional representation system used predominantly in Europe. Many of us will vote along straight party lines, holding our nose, not necessarily agreeing with everything contained in our party's platform or proclaimed by its candidate. We find ways to reduce our discomfort by yielding to social pressure, by trivializing the importance of discordant opinions, by denying responsibility or by other means that help us feel better about our decisions. A pertinent current example is the dissonance experienced by observers who are asked to state a position on Israel's response to the slaughter carried out by Hamas terrorists inside their country on October 7. Many will agree that Israel has a perfect right, or even a responsibility to go after the assassins with lethal force where ever they maintain their base of operations inside the Gaza Strip. However, most will also acknowledge that these militants reside among 2.3 million Palestinians, 52.3% of which are children under 18, who are wedged in tight living quarters with nowhere to hide or go. Hamas callously and openly employs this population as human shields. A military incursion will likely kill many of them. Anyone unconcerned by this prospect lacks compassion. We should all feel extremely uncomfortable contemplating the outcome of this festering conflict. While this may be an extreme example of a situation creating incompatible thoughts about outcomes in search of morally and politically acceptable solutions, the upcoming election year promises to be filled with discordant thoughts. Politicians tend to specialize in identifying what makes us feel uncomfortable, and suggesting dissonance reduction solutions that involve their personal records, opinions or prescriptions. American social psychologist Leon Festinger originated the theory of cognitive dissonance around the middle of the twentieth century. His work has been the focus of over 60 years of research, which can offer insights into the growing divide between what many politicians say and what they later say or do. Whether resultant discrepancies amount to political hypocrisy, expedience or situational change depends on our comfort level with the messenger. Theo Wierdsma

ECO ANXIETY CUTS MULTIPLE WAYS

A recent well researched article, written by Jason Horowitz and published in the New York Times, identifies a condition increasingly detectable among a growing segment of the world's younger population. Identified as an emotional disorder, this condition is described by members of the Ecology Psychiatry and Mental Health division of the World Psychiatry Association as "Eco-Anxiety" - a chronic fear of environmental doom. While the United States and Canada experienced some of the worst wildfires on record, for instance killing close to 100 in Maui, Europe is a continent on the verge of a nervous breakdown. In Greece, out of control blazes burned 310 square miles, the largest conflagration in the E.U. since 2000. If that was not enough, the fires gave way to flooding that submerged villages, washed away cars and left bodies floating in the streets. The same storm hitting Greece gained strength over the Mediterranean and pummeled Libya with flooding that killed up to 20,000 people. Add to those statistics the memory of almost 62,000 heat related deaths during the summer of 2022; the 51,000 deaths incurred during the earthquake in Turkey; and more than 3,000 fatalities from the earthquake in Morocco. With extreme heatwaves proliferating, and the incidence of hurricanes and typhoons increasing in numbers and intensity, the affects of climate change appear irreversible. It is understandable why many have become frustrated, powerless, overwhelmed or helpless, anxiously waiting for the next shoe to drop, a sentiment reminiscent of the anxiety felt by many who grew up during the 1950s and 1960s who worried about the potential of the "cold war" developing into a nuclear holocaust. Anxiety has understandably led to ever increasing pressure on governments to get behind strategies designed to mitigate the proliferation of the climate crisis. The response from the European Union to these recurring catastrophes has generally been more far reaching than that in our own country. Under its Climate Law, E.U member states are now required to cut greenhouse emissions by at least 55% by 2030, and be climate neutral by 2050. While these are lofty targets, execution by national governments have consistently come under attack. Eco-Anxiety is not a one way street. Economic interests on the receiving end of some of these strategies, while perhaps sympathetic to the motivation behind them, are often seriously concerned about their own survival. A case in point was highlighted by what I observed during a recent trip to the Netherlands. From the time I landed at Schiphol Airport we were confronted by repetitive signs declaring: "No Farms No Food!" It became evident that the Dutch government had agreed to attack the country's methane and nitrogen dioxide pollution, which is many times greater than that in all other E.U. countries. After carbon dioxide, methane is the 2nd largest contributor to climate change. It is responsible for around 30% of the current rise in global temperatures. It has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide. And 37% of methane emissions from human activity are a direct result of livestock and agricultural practices. The Dutch produce 34% more greenhouse gasses per capita than the average European. Scientists and policy makers have increasingly begun to recognize that methane reduction was crucial. So, for Dutch policy makers, this appeared to be a logical starting point. Among a number of measures to target a significant reduction of methane emissions, the government decided that it needed to achieve a 30% reduction in overall livestock numbers. This year it published a list of 3,000 of the most polluting farms, and threatens to close them forcibly. The E.U. assisted by approving a 1.47 billion Euro fund to be used to buy out Dutch farms located near nature reserves that committed to close shop voluntarily. Predictably, none of this sits well with the farmers that are affected. Many complain that the government wants to get rid of farmers all together. Strikes, demonstrations, and political opposition have been intense and unrelenting. Ultimately opponents of government policy succeeded in developing a new political party, known as the "BoerBurgerBeweging" (Farmer-Citizen Movement), also known as BBB, which, after provincial elections in March of this year, managed to become the largest party in the upper chamber of parliament. The affected farmers now have a seat at the table, potentially preventing the imposition of overly simplified government strategies that could drastically disturb their livelihood. This example illustrates that Eco-Anxiety cuts multiple ways. Extreme weather patterns have become the new normal. People are dying. Developing strategies and instilling habits to forestall Armageddon are essential. However, the process won't be as straightforward and free of resistance as many would like. Theo Wierdsma

PARADISE LOST

The August 8 blaze which decimated the town of Lahaina on the island of Maui was the nation's deadliest wildfire in a century, claiming at least 115 lives. This devastating event could also develop into having a climactic affect on the traditional Polynesian culture of the Hawaiian islands. Since tourism gradually replaced the island's historic economic structure based on subsistence farming for communal use, its continued viability is now almost entirely dependent on the travel industry. As a direct result of this catastrophic, all consuming, firestorm, Maui now sees 4,250 fewer visitors each day, losing $9 million tourist dollars every 24 hours. Hawaiian natives employed in the tourist industry, even those well removed from the burn site in West Maui, are losing their jobs. They will soon be unable to pay for rent and food. In the meantime, many locals are legitimately concerned that unscrupulous corporate real estate developers will attempt to exploit this dire situation by purchasing devastated plots of land to build more resorts on what used to be traditional grounds - further eroding the cultural core of the islands. The assault on the Polynesian culture of the islands began, arguably, with the initial contact between the native population and outsiders. Historically the most prominent incidence of this was the landing by Captain James Cook, an English explorer, and the first European to set foot on the Hawaiian islands. During his 3rd voyage to Hawaii, Cook and some of his men lost their lives in the course of a violent altercation with native warriors at Kealakekua Bay on the big island of Hawaii on February 14, 1779. A Hundred and twenty one years later Hawaii became part of the United States. Before annexation by the U.S. the kingdom of Hawaii was a sovereign nation state under the authority of a monarch, globally recognized since the 1800s. A governmental takeover forced King Kalakaua to sign a new constitution - dubbed the Bayonet Constitution - which granted voting rights only to Americans, Europeans and land-owning Hawaiians. Most native Hawaiians were not land owners. Decades of colonial interference and coercion ultimately culminated in the forced abdication of Hawaii's last queen Liliuokalani. Outside business interests took over control of land and policy, disenfranchising local people in the process. The use of the Hawaiian language was banned, causing its near extinction. Schools and all government functions were conducted in English. Agriculture shifted from subsistence, community focused farming to cash crop plantations in order to produce exportable, salable goods. In the late 20th century use of the land would once again shift from agricultural crops to a focus on tourism. Today, tourism generates billions of dollars a year for the Hawaiian economy. It comprises 21% of the state's financial resources. In 2019 visitor spending was almost $18 billion, provided by more than 10 million visitors. The Hawaiian government reported $2.07 billion in tax revenue for that year. However, these economic gains don't trickle down to the native population. Tourism spurs land development and resort construction, funded largely by shareholders of American-Japanese investment companies. Buying up the land to resell and rent out to tourists drives up rent prices for the locals who have lived in these communities for generations. While Hawaiians are being hired, they often end up with the lowest paying service jobs. The average income of native Hawaiians is $36,989 per year. The median price of a home is well above $1 million. It is estimated that a single person who wants to live comfortably in Hawaii needs an annual income of $70,000 to $100,000. Residents are spending 42.06% of their income on rent - the highest of any state in the nation. (California ranks 2nd at 28.47%). According to a 2022 report by the Oahu Continuum of Care, Hawaii is ranked 2nd highest in the nation for rate of homelessness per 10,000 people. Fifty-one percent of these are natives. The state's poverty level grew from 9% in 2018 to 15% in 2022. Native Hawaiians have the highest poverty level at 27%. In 2022, nearly half of Hawaii's youth population reside in households unable to afford basic life necessities. The tourism industry functions as a method of wealth extraction without providing benefits to the native Hawaiians on whose lands the industry profits. No wonder that an increasing number of Hawaii's native population is leaving, forced out by the high cost of living, the lack of job opportunities and career growth, and an economy moving at a slower rate than the continent. Many are "just exhausted from trying to make ends meet." They are being priced out of the Aloha state. For them and for those still hesitant to leave, even aside from financial considerations, it must be sad to see that: deforestation and construction for tourism are destroying sacred ecosystems and the habitats of thousands of wildlife species; major islands have lost nearly a quarter of their beaches during the last century, caused by seawalls and other barriers erected by wealthy homeowners; and perhaps even more than anything else, the marginalization of a once rich Polynesian culture. All of these factors contribute to the feeling that they no longer live in the paradise of their ancestors. Theo Wierdsma

REMEMBERING A DISTANT PAST

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some of us, at an advanced age, may not remember what we had for dinner last night, but clearly recollect what we experienced during our youth. This occurred to me recently when I was searching for a topic to write about to take a break from commenting on politically contentious issues. A friend of mine revealed a photograph of himself in full altar boy attire. This revelation generated memories from a fairly significant time period in my own life. A history which has had an impact on my own childhood. I was born in The Netherlands, four months before the end of World War II. During my first few years, my parents struggled to get a grip on the cultural destruction the Nazis left behind after occupying the country for five long years. When I turned six years old and entered grade school, I had gradually become aware of my surroundings. Compared to today, life, for me, was very simple. Once we acquired a telephone, we were connected to a party line. Our access number contained only three digits. Sinterklaas and Black Pete were real and legitimate. And each Catholic family was obligated to contribute one male member to the priesthood. To build up the depleted work force, the government generously contributed financial support for families who produced multiple children. For Catholic families, prohibited from using artificial birth control, this was a blessing. I ended up being the oldest of eleven children. Within the chaotic post war environment, one of the stable, familiar organizations providing a sense of comfort and belonging was the faith community. My parents, especially my dad, were quite involved with the local Catholic Church. So, when I turned six years old, my dad volunteered my services as a prospective altar boy. The introduction to my first official function in my religious community is a bit fuzzy. I remember being scheduled almost daily to assist in a daily 7:30am mass in the middle of winter. Wearing my best shorts (I suppose my parents could not afford long pants at the time) I would walk to church and huddled against a wall waiting for our pastor’s housekeeper to unlock the door so I could get in and get ready. But the physical strain was only a minor inconvenience. Back then, mass was celebrated in Latin. For a six year old, who only recently began to develop a vocabulary in my parents’ language, this became a struggle. We had to learn latin responses to the priest’s prayers during the mass. This meant sheer memorization. I do believe we had cue cards of sorts, but we had no clue what we were saying. This was not essential. We just needed to pronounce each syllable in the right order. Most people in the pews had no idea of what was being said either. Our pastor - revered for his open opposition to the Nazi occupation forces - was stone deaf and stubbornly impatient. He had a habit of strutting towards the altar, whether we altar boys were ready or not. Since he could not hear our responses to his prayers, he would look around to see if we were done reciting our responses, and continue when our lips no longer moved. When we were too slow performing other elements of our prescribed ritual, he would, to our embarrassment, loudly exclaim his impatience. Since he could not hear himself, his voice carried. In subsequent years, after the old pastor passed away, and still well before the 2nd Vatican Council (1962-1965) decreed that mass could be translated into commonly used languages, there were two occurrences that helped to focus my ultimate development. Influenced by my early years as an altar boy, and encouraged by slightly older friends destined for the seminary, I decided that I had received the calling to become a priest. I wanted to become a missionary, since, early on, I wanted to travel. To be clear, I also had my sights set on, at some point, becoming a saint. Sainthood appeared to be somewhat complicated. However, once the word leaked out, at least once a month a tenacious recruiter from a regional seminary began to show up at our house. While hormones may have played a role in causing me ultimately to shelve these objectives, another developing issue caused me to cancel them altogether. My relationship with our new parochial priest gradually became confrontational. It did not take long before our disagreements reached a boiling point. There came a time when I had had enough, led an insurrection and called a strike. All of my fellow altar boys followed suit. The work stoppage lasted the better part of a full month. At some time during this period I realized that my pursuit of the priesthood was no longer tenable. After all, if I continued on that track I would certainly not become the first and only Dutch pope since Adrian VI, who only ruled for 20 months during the 16th century. As it was, even though he was nominated as a compromise candidate by Cardinal De Medici, he was considered to be the “Barbarian of the North” by the Italian clerical elite. All in all, I may have disappointed some of my friends and relatives at the time. However, the entire period taught me a sense of responsibility well beyond my years, and provided a bundle of memories that occupied a special place in my early life. I retained a deeper understanding of the religion I grew up with, something I might not have had had my dad not involved me at a very early age. While I may not remember what I had to eat yesterday, a simple black and white photograph generated scents, sounds and sights that were buried in a history I might have forgotten. Theo Wierdsma

WHITEWASHING THE HORRORS OF SLAVERY

On July 18 of this year, Florida officials issued new guidelines for a public school curriculum which required teachers to instruct middle school students that enslaved people actually developed skills from their situation that would later benefit them. These guidelines followed previously issued requirements mandating how to communicate a revisionist history of the Ocoee Election Day massacre in November of 1920, when a mob of white men killed an unknown number of African Americans attempting to vote in Ocoee, Fla, and ran others out of town, burning down houses. These instructions, which the state board of education approved on July 19, drew immediate backlash from educators and political leaders. The White House even sent Vice President Kamala Harris to the state two days later to issue an impassioned rebuke. Governor Ron DeSantis, who openly engineered the controversy, defended the new standards. However, his attempt to hide behind legitimate revisionist interpretations of history, implicitly claiming "alternate facts," fell flat. While professional scholars challenging orthodox views of history based on serious research is entirely legitimate, blatantly catering to the negative responses of a segment of the population to racial progress of other ethnic groups for political reasons is not. This is what social scientists refer to as "historical negationism." It is akin to propaganda. The latest effort in our enduring attempts at whitewashing the horrors of slavery. Slavery has been a hot issue since well before the establishment of our republic. While drafting our Constitution the topic was deliberately avoided. Our founding fathers understood that, if they wanted to have a chance that the slave states would help ratify the document, the only way they could really deal with the question of slavery was not to deal with it at all. The first time we see the words "slave" and "slavery" show up in official documents were, after the Civil War, in the 13th Amendment to our Constitution, which abolished slavery and which was ratified December 6, 1865. Our history is replete with apologists for slavery and the slave trade. The southern states defended slavery by using economic, historic and even biblical arguments. They were concerned that abolishing the practice would collapse their economy. Besides, they pointed out that the Greeks and the Romans possessed slaves, that Abraham had slaves and that Jesus never spoke out against slavery even though it was widespread during Roman times. They even argued that slavery was divine - that it brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean and was a good thing for the enslaved. John C. Calhoun, our seventh vice president (1825-1832), was adamant: "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day attained a condition so civilized and improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually." Defenders of slavery in antebellum (pre-war) America maintained that slavery as practiced in the south was more humane than the system of wage slavery in the north. George Fitzhugh, a Virginia lawyer, in his book "Cannibals All! Or slaves without masters," argued that northern capitalists squeezed the greatest amount of work out of laborers for the least amount of pay, only to abandon them when they were no longer useful. By contrast, in the south, labor is capital. Slaves do the work, but they represent a substantial capital investment. "It is in our owners' interest to protect, not oppress them." He concluded that "the negro slaves of the south are the happiest and, in some sense the freest people in the world." Examples of similar opinions held by politicians and stakeholders inclined to comment about slavery are plentiful. Not all of these are restricted to the 18th or 19th century. The historian Donald Yacovone, in "Teaching White Supremacy," writes: "Until the mid 1960s, American history instruction from grammar school to the university relentlessly characterized slavery as a benevolent institution, an enjoyable time and a gift to those Africans who had been lucky enough to be brought to the United States." As recently as 2017, Dr. Ben Carson, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Trump administration, gave an inaugural speech in which he described slaves as "immigrants, who came here in the bottom of slave ships, but they had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons .... might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land." The application of historic negationism is by no means restricted to our continued attempts at downplaying the enormity of slavery and its defining feature, hereditary racial bondage. Holocaust denialism is still prevalent. Turkey continues to flatly deny that the Armenian genocide ever took place. Japan's educational system fails to mention heinous war crimes committed by the country during World War II. In the end, understanding history in its entirety is of paramount importance. Repudiating the events we find painful does not change the fact that they actually happened. Our present day political systems are built on historical events. In order to move effectively into the future, we must understand history in its totality - the good, the bad and the ugly included. Theo Wierdsma