The Senate has confirmed former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as Trump’s defense secretary by just one vote. Hegseth has “very clear” ties to extreme Christian nationalism, as well as a history of alleged sexual assault and abuse. Logan Davis, a reporter in Denver, Colorado, who grew up in the same classical Christian educational movement that Hegseth is raising his family in, explains the problematic ideology that shapes it. Hegseth has endorsed leaders in the community and their beliefs that the church possesses supremacy over worldly affairs, antebellum slavery was a “beneficent American institution” and the U.S.'s global war on terror is a modern-day iteration of the medieval Crusades. Davis says Hegseth's lack of qualifications for his new role means he will likely be “leaning on these controversial faith leaders in his life more than someone with adequate experience” would be — bringing this extremist Christian nationalism into the mainstream.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Donald Trump has been reelected president of the United States. Ahead of Kamala Harris’s expected concession speech, we speak to professors Carol Anderson and Michele Goodwin to discuss Harris’s historic campaign — and historic loss. “The Confederacy won,” says Anderson, a professor of African American studies at Emory University. “It paints a picture of what Americans are willing to embrace,” says Goodwin, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown and an expert on healthcare law, who warns of the public health dangers of a second Trump administration and discusses the election’s implications for reproductive rights.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Monument removal efforts grew in 2017 after a counterprotester was killed at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where white supremacist groups defended the preservation of Confederate monuments. Removal movements saw widespread success in 2020 following George Floyd’s death at the hands of the police.

These events linked Confederate monuments to modern racist beliefs and acts. But whether monuments carry inherent racism or are merely misinterpreted requires further exploration.

Research by economist Jhacova A. Williams has shown that Black Americans who live in areas that have a relatively higher number of streets named after prominent Confederate generals “are less likely to be employed, are more likely to be employed in low-status occupations, and have lower wages compared to Whites.”

I study economic and political history and have researched the effects of Confederate monuments in the post-Civil War South. I found that these symbols helped solidify the Jim Crow era, which established segregation across the South and lasted from the 1880s until the 1960s. These symbols were accompanied by increases in the vote share of the Democratic Party – the racist party that had supported slavery and, after the Civil War, supported segregation for another century. The building of these monuments was also accompanied by reductions in voter turnout. Further research I conducted shows that these political effects disproportionately occurred in areas with a larger share of Black residents.

In other words, as these monuments were erected, the vote increased for members of the then-racist Democratic Party, and people turned out to vote in lower numbers in predominantly Black areas.

These findings demonstrate that a connection existed between racism and these monuments from their inception – and provide context for modern monument debates.

Monumental history

The South saw almost no monument dedications during the Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1865. Monuments first appeared during the Reconstruction era – 1865 to 1877 – when Southern states were occupied by the North and integrated back into the Union.

Reconstruction-era monuments in general did not glorify the Confederacy. These monuments largely honored the dead and were placed in cemeteries and spaces distant from daily life. They compartmentalized the trauma of the war, commemorating lives but not placing the Confederacy at the center of Southern identity.

As Reconstruction neared its end in 1875, a Stonewall Jackson monument erected in Richmond, Virginia, foreshadowed the different monuments to come.

The monument’s dedication drew 50,000 spectators and included a military-style parade. The potential presence of a local all-Black militia proved to be controversial. To avoid accusations of race mixing, organizers planned to place the militia and any other Black participants in the back of the parade.

The militia did not attend, likely in anticipation of the controversy, and the only Black Southerners present in the parade were formerly enslaved people who had served in the Confederacy’s Stonewall Brigade. This stark picture of Southern race relations served as a preview of political developments to come.

This trend continued after Reconstruction, which ended with the Compromise of 1877. This compromise settled the disputed 1876 presidential election, giving Republicans the presidency and Democrats, then a pro-segregation party, full political control of the South. Democrats subsequently established what would become known as Jim Crow laws across the South, an array of restrictive and discriminatory laws that disenfranchised Black Southerners and made them second-class citizens.

Monuments played a cultural role in establishing the Jim Crow South. Unlike Reconstruction monuments, post-Reconstruction monuments were erected in prominent public spaces, and their focus shifted toward the portrayal and glorification of famous Confederates. Monument dedication ceremonies were particularly popular around the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, peaking in 1911.

Additional Confederate monuments have been dedicated since that period, but those numbers pale in comparison to the monument-building spree of 1878 to 1912.

Monumental effects

My research investigates the political effects of Confederate monuments in the Reconstruction and early post-Reconstruction – 1877-1912 – eras, namely their effects on Democratic Party vote share and voter turnout.

I expected monuments’ potential effects to be directly related to their centrality to everyday life and glorification of the Confederacy. This is the primary difference between soldier-memorializing Reconstruction and Confederate-glorifying post-Reconstruction monuments.

I expected to find little political effect from soldier-memorializing Reconstruction monuments, but some pro-Jim Crow effects from Confederate-glorifying post-Reconstruction monuments. As monuments moved from cemeteries into central public spaces such as parks and squares, I expected them to affect voters’ decisions.

That is precisely what I found.

During Reconstruction, counties that dedicated Confederate monuments saw no change in voter turnout or Democratic Party vote share in biennial congressional elections. These symbols were soldier-memorializing and physically separate from public life and did not influence voter decision-making.

However, when monuments began to glorify the Confederacy and shifted into public life, political effects emerged.

Counties that dedicated monuments in the early post-Reconstruction period saw, on average, a 5.5 percentage point increase in Democratic Party vote share and a 2.2 percentage point decrease in voter turnout compared with other counties.

As monuments changed, so did their effect on the public. Glorifying public monuments communicated to the public that the Confederacy was worth preserving, thus strengthening Democratic majorities and lowering participation in the political process.

Larger Democratic majorities alongside lower voter turnout already suggests Black Southerners, who almost exclusively voted for Republicans at that time, were voting less in areas with monuments. I conducted further exploration and found that these political effects disproportionately occurred in counties with larger Black populations. This suggests that Black voters were more responsive to Confederate monuments, which suppressed their political activity by signaling they were not accepted by the local community.

The effects of post-Reconstruction monuments suggest that they played a role in continued racism throughout the South into the early 20th century.

Their controversy today demonstrates the values still conveyed by their presence in society. Recent research has demonstrated the long-run effects of the spread of Southern white culture and prejudices across the United States post-Civil War, connecting it to higher levels of modern-day Republican Party voting and conservative values.

It is thus no wonder Confederate monuments, as prominent symbols of pro-Confederate, Southern white culture, continue to be – and are likely to remain – cultural flashpoints.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Alexander Taylor.

Chiefs are to serve people and not to be served, Fiji President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere told the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) on Bau Island in Fiji today.

The Council — regarded as the apex of traditional Fijian leadership and also accused of being a racist institution — was discarded by former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama following his 2006 military coup.

Today, 16 years since it was removed, the Great Council is returning under Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government.

• READ MORE: Other great Council of Chiefs reports

Ratu Wiliame Katonivere said the Great Council was now challenged more than ever in their decision making as traditional leaders to safeguard, collaborate and promote inclusivity in the dynamics of an evolving Fiji.

He said the Turaga Tui Macuata urged chiefs to stand to together in unity in their service, while expecting challenges and changes.

Ratu Wiliame said the chiefs met in a new dawn and they needed to welcome those who made up Fiji’s multicultural society and have made Fiji their home.

“We are chiefs in our own right — we have subjects, we are inheritors of our land, sea, and its flora and fauna,” Ratu Wiliame said.

‘Unifying vision’
“As we meet, we bring with us the hopes and the needs of our people and our land that depend on our vision in unifying our wise deliberations that shall lead to inclusive decisions that encompasses all that we treasure as a people and a nation.”

“As it reconvenes, the GCC must focus on two principles, firstly, we need to be conscious of the existence of those who will challenge the status quo; and secondly, to encourage our people to work together for our advancement as a people, where no one is left behind,” he said.

Ratu Wiliame said the reinstatment of the Great Council was happening at a critical stage in Fiji’s development and the challenge was for the chiefs to stand up and be counted by playing their roles that they were born into, reminding them of the words of the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna that being a chief was not an ornament.

“The title of chief is not an ornament. An ornament is adorned to be marveled and admired, or as fashionable wear, rather as chiefs we are bound by duty and responsibility that require our intentional and undivided attention,” he said.

With this new beginning, it was “paramount that we reflect on our traditional ties with one another as iTaukei, to the government of the day and to the church.”

He said it was crucial that the reconvened Great Council of Chiefs delivered on the very purpose with which it was initially established, for the preservation of the iTaukei land, marine and natural ecosystem, guided by relevant legislation.

“The Great Council of Chiefs is duty-bound to safeguard, defend, liberate all-encompassing matters of all Fijians respecting the rule of law,” Ratu Williame said.

Ratu Sukuna’s legacy
Speaking to the gathering on Bau Island, Ratu Wiliame also referred to the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna.

“He was predestined for leadership that included military training and he was awarded the Croix de Guerre for his gallant role in World War I under the French Foreign Legion.

“The preordained life of Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna became the gateway to his life of servitude to his people, the land and the crown.”

He said these were traits that the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna was renowned for, a visionary, decisive and intellectual leader that was indicative only of a leader who was divinely anointed.

Ratu Sukuna was Fiji’s older statesman and he helped in setting up iTaukei leadership and land systems.

New vision and mission
Ratu Wiliame said it was therefore crucial that the Great Council of Chiefs establish and build on its previous accomplishments and embark on a new vision and mission to be able to better navigate the new changes and developments as we chart our way forward.

He said their role as leaders remained to be the fiercest defender of Fiji’s natural resources both on land and at sea, particularly with protecting their frontier from the current effects and impact of climate change.

He also called on chiefs to remember their role equally lay in encouraging iTaukei and people to contribute to growing the economy and to promote economic empowerment and stability to better enhance their livelihoods.

“Should we want a better Fiji, it is pertinent that our younger generations are groomed in iTaukei protocol, leadership and all mannerism befitting a servant leader,” he said.

“The Great Council of Chiefs is now challenged more than ever in our decision making as traditional leaders to safeguard, collaborate and promote inclusivity in the dynamics of our evolving Fiji.”

Ratu Wiliame acknowledged the Turaga na Vunivalu na Tui Kaba, Ratu Epenisa Cakobau for inviting the Great Council to be held on Bau Island.

Ratu Epenisa is the paramount chief of Fiji in his traditional title as the high chief of the Kubuna Confederacy.

Forgiveness
The opening ceremony also saw the seeking of forgiveness from government and the Christian churches in Fiji for past events that had caused splits within the Great Council and Fiji as a nation.

The government’s traditional apology, or matanigasau, was presented by Apimeleki Tola, Acting Commissioner of the Native Lands Commission and was accepted by the Marama Bale Na Roko Tui Dreketi, Ro Teimumu Kepa, the traditional head of the Burebasaga confederacy.

Tola asked the chiefs to forgive the past government and its decision to de-establish the Great Council and also asked for their blessings and support in the work that government is doing for the people of Fiji.

Ro Teimumu accepted on behalf of the chiefs and urged government and civil servants to continue their service to the people of Fiji.

Two other apologies were presented and accepted.

The first was from the government to the church and religious leaders and the second from the religious leaders to the chiefs of Fiji.

The official opening ceremony was preceded by a church service conducted by the president of the Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma and full traditional Fijian ceremony of welcome.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.