"Children of the Night" featuring Steve Coleman

"Quiet Nights of Quiet Stars" (Corcovado)

"Redemption Song"

"St. James Infirmary"

Devin Fergus. Liberalism, Black Power, and the Making of American Politics, 1965-1980. Politics and Culture in the Twentieth-Century South Series. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2009. Illustrations. 364 pp. $69.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8203-3323-6; $26.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-8203-3324-3.

Reviewed by Angela Ryan (Ohio State University)
Published on H-1960s (June, 2010)
Commissioned by Jessica Kovler

Soft Power in Pursuit of Black Power

Devin Fergus, in his first book Liberalism, Black Power, and the Making of American Politics, 1965-1980, offers a reassessment of the Black Power movement by exploring the extent to which liberalism co-opted, modified, and acquiesced to the nationalist ideology. To demonstrate his case that Black Power sought to ally with and gain support from liberalism, Fergus grounds his analysis in North Carolina, using a variety of new and interesting sources. His main thesis is that the survival, funding, and continued relevancy of Black Power beyond the sixties is owed not to its dogged pursuit of nationalism by any means necessary, but rather to its willingness to be open and to engage with mainstream liberalism. Rather than see this as the dirty little secret of Black Power, Fergus finds this an underappreciated and lamentably absent element of Black Power studies. The premise that Black Power maintained a continuous, though tenuous, alliance with liberalism for decades is a provocative thesis. This thesis has serious implications for the mainstream narrative history of American politics, as well as the extraordinarily popular history of Black Power.

By claiming that Black Power sought and cultivated copasetic relations with white liberals, the book aims to undermine the predominant narrative of this topic, which maintains that Black Power was a movement cultivated outside of and in opposition to mainstream American politics. Indeed, the very popularity of Black Power studies rests on the premise that this was a radical social movement that challenged basic assumptions about race and class and threatened to undermine the political status quo. While consensus on this may not be uniform, most Black Power scholars adhere to this basic tenet, even as they seek to broaden our understanding of the ideology and debunk some of the myths of the movement.[1] In challenging this common ground, Fergus claims to locate a continuum of activism on the part of Black Power, which includes the radical (and rhetorically revolutionary) elements alongside those who sought an advantageous relationship with state power.

So how does Fergus make his case that Black Power openly sought to ally with liberalism? He begins, rightly, by defining his terms. Black Power is used interchangeably with black nationalism, while liberalism is used interchangeably with soft power. While this may raise some eyebrows, the vocabulary is not as important as the ways in which these two terms, and their appropriated meanings, relate to each other. Black nationalism is the object of soft power. In other words, there is antagonist separatism (Black Power), which through attraction and funding (soft power), can be reformed and incorporated.

From there, Fergus offers a series of case studies of events in North Carolina that demonstrate the interplay between liberalism and Black Power. The first two chapters provide the setting and context for politics in North Carolina and explore the creation of Malcolm X Liberation University (MXLU). Chapter 3 examines the local Black Panther Party branch. Chapters 4 and 5 turn to the case of North Carolinian Joan Little, a black female inmate accused of killing the prison guard who sexually assaulted her. Fergus explores the manner in which Little’s case offered North Carolina liberals a chance to bring Black Power into the fold in their quest for a cosmopolitan state. He also uses her trial as an opportunity to discuss the sexual politics of Black Power. Chapter 6 looks at the effort to build a self-sufficient industrial city (Soul City) that would create jobs and encourage black capitalism. In addition, this chapter expands on North Carolina to demonstrate the larger effects of liberalism’s association with Black Power, which Fergus contends was at least partially responsible for the success of the New Right.

In relating this series of events, Fergus employs a variety of sources, including many new collections as well as his own interviews with key people involved. His sources are used to great effect to shed light on each of the events described in the book. While much has been written about the trial of Little, the bibliographies of MXLU and Soul City, by comparison, are short. Thus, Fergus’s careful description and exploration provide new points of interest for the reader. Fergus’s arguments are laid out using a similar theme for each event: Black Power elements maintain a defiant stance toward state intervention, until operatives of “the liberal state”--Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the North Carolina Fund, the Ford Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Episcopalian Church--convinced them through investment or the provision of “operational space” (which could be literal in the sense of actual office space, or figurative in the sense of money, influence, or power) to abandon their extremism in the pursuit of a shared goal. Fergus explains the motivation for Black Power adherents as a Machiavellian calculation of their long-term goals and the short-term sacrifices necessary to achieve them. While this is a provocative claim, Fergus manages to convincingly argue that black radicals stood to gain from the investment and protection provided by their alliance with liberal institutions. What is not as convincingly argued is the impetus for liberal organizations to engage with Black Power.

Fergus is fond of saying that liberalism saved Black Power from the brink of political violence and philosophical nihilism. For Fergus, the idea that liberalism would be the savior of racial extremism is an extension of the ways in which soft power operated internationally: namely, that in an effort to diffuse anti-Americanism and cultivate allies, the United States attracted, rather than attacked, the enemy. It is clear, from a national security standpoint, why a liberal foreign policy like soft power would make sense to some. However, extending that argument to domestic policy does not translate as efficiently as Fergus would like. And therein lies the most serious flaw in the argument of the book: what does liberalism stand to gain from attracting, modifying, and incorporating Black Power? Fergus argues that liberalism diffused and contained the power of black nationalism by attaching strings to their provision of operational space (he also unconvincingly argues that the reverse was also true: revoking funding caused revolutionary Black Power to flourish). Their intent was to disarm Black Power and prevent them from being a political liability. However, Fergus argues that the opposite effect was achieved: by providing aid and incorporating Black Power, liberalism opened itself up to criticism from the Right, and unwittingly provided fodder for the emergent conservative revolution.

What Fergus fails to account for in this argument is the fact that the Right, by the time his story unfolds, had already made significant inroads into the political mainstream and had seen its coalition achieve national victory with the election of Richard Nixon to the presidency in 1968. Thus, by the 1970s, when the bulk of Fergus’s action takes place, liberalism was already on the defensive against ascendant conservatism. A political calculation to attract and diffuse Black Power in the face of the New Right’s powerful national consensus is a somewhat facile explanation for liberalism’s engagement with Black Power. Had liberals felt an overwhelming need to do something about Black Power, it would appear that ignoring or distancing themselves would have been a more effective means of appealing to moderates and gaining electoral traction. Thus, the central argument that Fergus poses--that late century American liberalism had an overarching desire to build a political coalition with a kindler, gentler Black Power--is less than successful. This conceptual gap is further exacerbated by the reliance on North Carolina as a case study. Fergus does not convincingly demonstrate that North Carolina can be an example of a nationwide trend. While elements of the liberal establishment certainly engaged with elements of Black Power in North Carolina, it is unclear whether larger political lessons are necessarily contained in these interactions.

Beyond the problems with the central thesis of the work, there are several moments where Fergus contributes excellent insight and demonstrates the utility of expanding the scope of Black Power studies to include dalliances with mainstream liberalism. For instance, the role that the Episcopalian Church played in funding MXLU is a surprising story that should cause many to rethink the role that the church played in later years of black activism. Another instance in which Fergus manages to apply his framework of the liberalism-Black Power alliance to great effect is in the case of Little. Fergus argues that North Carolina liberals were determined to prove that their state was cosmopolitan, and by extension not racist and sexist, by working to exonerate Little. To do so, they courted Black Power activists to gain legitimacy for their case and momentum for the defense. Black Power activists in North Carolina, eager to capitalize on the publicity of the case, allied with white liberals and used their newfound leverage to promote their agenda. Fergus uses this opportunity to deconstruct the gender politics of the Black Power movement, by showing how male activists leaped to the defense of Little and publicly denounced sexual violence against black women, while at the same time many of the same men were themselves caught up in allegations of sexual assault. Fergus acknowledges the misogyny of Black Power, in reality and in myth, and offers a refreshing look into the evolving role that women and feminism played within the movement.

Fergus’s conclusion contains the bulk of his historiographical analysis, and in it he extends an ultimatum to specialists of Black Power studies: acknowledge the relationship that Black Power had with the liberal state, or risk obscurity. Fergus explores the twin historiographies of Black Power specialists and American history generalists, and concludes that the latter have been much more willing to acknowledge this fact, but are less equipped than specialists to understand and explore the full implications. Fergus desires to see Black Power specialists and American history generalists engage in vibrant dialog and interchange about the nature of American politics. More specifically, however, Fergus would like scholars to be unafraid of confronting the truth that Black Power received substantial monetary and operational support from the liberal establishment. While Fergus’s work offers a first crack at understanding this relationship, I too hope that others choose to take up the study of Black Power’s financial reliance on the white, liberal state.

In all, Fergus offers a compelling read that poses many provocative questions, and offers well-researched case studies in support of his arguments. The style and syntax can be obtuse and repetitive at times. The narrative flow is somewhat disjointed, and the text leans heavily toward analysis at the expense of storytelling--no effort is made to develop suspense in the trial of Little, which could have been an excellent opportunity to flex a literary muscle and entertain the reader. However, chapter and section titles offer witty and clever signposts, such as “Speaking Truth to Black Power,” “The Edifice Complex,” and “Soul City on Ice.”

Note

[1]. See Charles Jones, ed., The Black Panther Party Reconsidered (Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 1998). 

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the list discussion logs at: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl.

Citation: Angela Ryan. Review of Fergus, Devin, Liberalism, Black Power, and the Making of American Politics, 1965-1980. H-1960s, H-Net Reviews. June, 2010.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=25540

Serena McDonald Kennedy Award

No more than 50,000 word novella or 200 page manuscript of short stories will be accepted. Any well written manuscript on any topic will be considered. Previously published works may be entered.

An entry fee of $25 must accompany the submission.

$1,000 award and publication

Deadline: July 31, 2010

 

 

Mailing Address:

Snake Nation Press

2920 North Oak Street

Valdosta, Georgia 31602

Explore our site and visit our blog and tell us what you think.

Faith in Literature and Art l Ruminate Magazine

Submission Guidelines

A good word, in and of itself, can be a spiritual endeavor expressing the beauty, creativity, and ironies of the human experience. Because of this, RUMINATE publishes work with both subtle and overt associations to the Christian faith as well as work that has no direct association. We look forward to seeing your work! Submissions are accepted year-round. We only accept submissions that are previously unpublished. Contributors are paid with either a one-year subscription or contributor single copies. If you agree to allow RUMINATE to publish your work, we will receive first serial rights. Before submitting, we strongly recommend ordering a copy of the magazine in order to better understand the type of work we publish and to tailor your submission accordingly. We also ask all artists and writers previously published in RUMINATE to wait two reading periods before submitting again. We ONLY accept online submissions, as our readers are spread out across the country. Any submissions made by postal mail or email will not be considered. THEMES/DEADLINES Winter Issue #18, Sounds and Silence: Deadline August 15th, 2010 Spring Issue #19, Sustaining: Dealine November 15th, 2010 After the reading deadline has passed for an issue, it generally takes us six to eight weeks to respond. If you have questions regarding your submission, please contact us. Fiction and Nonfiction We accept fiction, creative nonfiction, and interviews. We only accept pieces that are under 6,000 words. You may submit up to two pieces of shorter prose per reading period (6,000 cumulative words), or one piece of longer prose. The files you submit must be .doc, .rft, .pdf, or .txt format, and make sure there are no apostrophes in the file name. Please include your name within the document that you submit, preferably at the top of the first page. Please title your file(s) being submitted with your last name, first name, and the genre of your work: (Doe_John_Essay.doc). Poetry You may submit up to three poems per reading period, with a maximum of 50 lines per poem. The files you submit must be .doc, .rft, .pdf, or .txt format, and make sure there are no apostrophes in the file name. Include your name within the document that you submit, preferably at the top of each poem. Please title your file(s) being submitted with your last name, first name, and the genre of your work: (Doe_John_Poetry.doc). Art Visual artists may submit images through our online submission form. Alternatively, you may mail a CD to RUMINATE visual arts editor, Stefani Rossi, at 2766-A W. Riverwalk Circle, Littleton, CO 80123. For either option, please submit the following: Professional quality digital images in TIFF or JPG formats (if JPG, saved in “baseline” or “standard” format at the highest quality possible). Images must be Mac and PC compatible. Note: Please do not submit PPT or PPTX presentations. A minimum of 320 dpi Between 1200 and 2400 pixels in the longest dimension Please title image files with your last name and first initial, year of the work, title, medium and dimensions (example: Doe_J_2009_Title_oil on panel_9x12.jpg). Brief biographical and artist statements as either text files (Word) or as PDFs. Please title the files with your last name, first initial, and the content of the file (example: Doe_J_ArtistStatement.doc or Doe_J_Biography.doc). For CD submissions: SASE if you would like the return of your materials. Please Note: Due to the volume of submissions we receive, images that are improperly formatted or incorrectly labeled will not be considered. While RUMINATE may not utilize your images, please note that they will be kept on file in our submissions archive (artists will retain all pertinent rights and RUMINATE will not publish archived images without the appropriate permissions and release from the artist).  If you have questions regarding the submitting process for art, please contact Stefani Rossi. Reviews We review new and not-so-new books of poetry, short story collections, anthologies, fiction, memoir, and nonfiction. Our short reviews focus on books dealing with the arts and/or faith. The longer review essays tackle several books on a distinct theme--a theme that somehow engages the overall theme for that issue. These essays should be thesis-driven rather than a disconnected string of reviews on the works at hand. 200 words for mini-reviews; 800-2500 for longer reviews. If you would like to query us about a book or list of books that you are interested in reviewing, please contact Brianna Van Dyke.    ONLINE SUBMISSION FORM Submit Your Work Here

Romare Bearden's Southern Sensibility

Happy birthday, Nelson Mandela!

by Rethabile on July 18, 2010

in Apartheid, Birthday, Guest Blogger, Human Rights, Lesotho, Poetry, Racism, South Africa

NB: The following is only part of what Nelson Mandela said in his defense in 1964, when he was being tried for treason in South-Africa, and going to be, as everyone had thought, sentenced to death. It is only the last bit of that speech. Read all of it at this site. The rest is history (I couldn’t help saying that).

“The Government often answers its critics by saying that Africans in South Africa are economically better off than the inhabitants of the other countries in Africa. I do not know whether this statement is true and doubt whether any comparison can be made without having regard to the cost-of-living index in such countries. But even if it is true, as far as the African people are concerned it is irrelevant. Our complaint is not that we are poor by comparison with people in other countries, but that we are poor by comparison with the white people in our own country, and that we are prevented by legislation from altering this imbalance.

The lack of human dignity experienced by Africans is the direct result of the policy of white supremacy. White supremacy implies black inferiority. Legislation designed to preserve white supremacy entrenches this notion. Menial tasks in South Africa are invariably performed by Africans. When anything has to be carried or cleaned the white man will look around for an African to do it for him, whether the African is employed by him or not. Because of this sort of attitude, whites tend to regard Africans as a separate breed. They do not look upon them as people with families of their own; they do not realize that they have emotions – that they fall in love like white people do; that they want to be with their wives and children like white people want to be with theirs; that they want to earn enough money to support their families properly, to feed and clothe them and send them to school. And what ‘house-boy’ or ‘garden-boy’ or laborer can ever hope to do this?

Pass laws, which to the Africans are among the most hated bits of legislation in South Africa, render any African liable to police surveillance at any time. I doubt whether there is a single African male in South Africa who has not at some stage had a brush with the police over his pass. Hundreds and thousands of Africans are thrown into jail each year under pass laws. Even worse than this is the fact that pass laws keep husband and wife apart and lead to the breakdown of family life.

Poverty and the breakdown of family life have secondary effects. Children wander about the streets of the townships because they have no schools to go to, or no money to enable them to go to school, or no parents at home to see that they go to school, because both parents (if there be two) have to work to keep the family alive. This leads to a breakdown in moral standards, to an alarming rise in illegitimacy, and to growing violence which erupts not only politically, but everywhere. Life in the townships is dangerous. There is not a day that goes by without somebody being stabbed or assaulted. And violence is carried out of the townships in the white living areas. People are afraid to walk alone in the streets after dark. Housebreakings and robberies are increasing, despite the fact that the death sentence can now be imposed for such offences. Death sentences cannot cure the festering sore.

Africans want to be paid a living wage. Africans want to perform work which they are capable of doing, and not work which the Government declares them to be capable of. Africans want to be allowed to live where they obtain work, and not be endorsed out of an area because they were not born there. Africans want to be allowed to own land in places where they work, and not to be obliged to live in rented houses which they can never call their own. Africans want to be part of the general population, and not confined to living in their own ghettoes. African men want to have their wives and children to live with them where they work, and not be forced into an unnatural existence in men’s hostels. African women want to be with their menfolk and not be left permanently widowed in the Reserves. Africans want to be allowed out after eleven o’clock at night and not to be confined to their rooms like little children. Africans want to be allowed to travel in their own country and to seek work where they want to and not where the Labor Bureau tells them to. Africans want a just share in the whole of South Africa; they want security and a stake in society.

Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy.

But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on color, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one color group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it will not change that policy.

This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live.

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”
~Nelson Mandela – April 20, 1964

Post-note: On June 11, 1964, at the conclusion of the trial, Mandela was found guilty on four charges of sabotage and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He began his sentence in the notorious Robben Island Prison, a maximum security prison on a small island off the coast near Cape Town. A worldwide campaign to free Mandela began in the 1980s and resulted in his release on February 11, 1990, at age 71, after 27 years in prison. In 1993, Mandela shared the Nobel Peace Prize with South Africa’s President F.W. de Klerk for their peaceful efforts to bring a non-racial democracy to South Africa. Black South Africans voted for the first time in the 1994 election that brought Mandela the presidency of South Africa.

——————–

Tlhokomeliso
“If needs be, it is an ideal
for which I am prepared to die.”
~ ntate Mandela

Before the naming rites,
even before we were free to be free
from terror in our ranks,
before prison and death
became our constitutional rights,
a cry echoed among the elements
to shake the tenements
inside heaven and inside hell;
flesh came into my shell,
resided in me, heavy and light
according to the moment—
god, and politics, entered me,
possessed my heart; and so
I say to you, destroy me
because there’s a part of me
that belongs, and will not
acquiesce; for your benefit
and that of your progeny,
slay, before it’s too late,
the part in me that is hers
and will not succumb. Or
come to me after the night
where light finds its day.
I will wait for you.

heavy rains in the Corail resettlement site - no comment

The Source of Our Despair in the Gulf

Sunday 18 July 2010

by: Dahr Jamail and Erika Blumenfeld, t r u t h o u t | Photo Essay

(Photo: Erika Blumenfeld)

For the first time in 87 days, little or no oil could be escaping into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's Macondo well. The new capping stack was deployed on July 11 from onboard the Transocean Discoverer Inspiration.

With a new containment cap atop the damaged well, many are hopeful.

But all is not well, after all.

National Incident Commander Thad Allen said Friday that the pressure within the cap is not increasing, as was expected.

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

The idea is that the pressure (in pounds per square inch [PSI]) within the cap should balance out between 8-9,000 PSI, which would show the well has maintained integrity. BP hoped to reach 9,000 PSI, but stated that well integrity would be maintained with 7,500+ PSI. Unfortunately for BP, if the pressure tops out below that level, as it is now at 6,720 PSI, this could be an indication of a sub-sea leak somewhere deeper inside the well casing, meaning the well has failed. One concern associated with this lower pressure is that it may indicate that the well has been breached, and that oil and gas are leaking out at other undetermined points.

Given BP's proven propensity towards lying, skeptics - who are consistently needed to keep BP's rhetoric in check - are also pointing toward other factors that could mean oil is continuing to spew into the Gulf near the well.

"With the pressure now virtually level at 6,700 [psi], it's at the lower end of the ambiguity range, so it seems there is a good chance there is leak-off," writes the Daily Hurricane. "That makes a lot of sense to me since there [are] 1,200 feet of open hole from the bottom of the 9 /7/8" liner to TD at about 18,300 feet. That's not to mention possible casing damage up hole. Think of it like a garden hose with a nozzle on the end. As long as the nozzle is open, the hose looks fine. As soon as you close the nozzle, the hose will leak through any pinholes or around the faucet as pressure builds inside. In his statement late yesterday, Admiral Allen indicated they were probably going to go back to containment, which means they'll be flowing the well to the various ships they have on station."

Like virtually every other aspect of BP's oil catastrophe in the Gulf, we'll have to wait and see how bad this really is.

On Monday, we took a flight out to what is referred to now as "the source": the former site of the Deepwater Horizon rig. It's taken me this long to be able to write about what we saw, because it was, frankly, traumatizing.

Oil sheen and sub-surface plumes of oil were visible long before we arrived at the source, located approximately 45 miles off the southeast coast of Louisiana.

In what has been a consistently maddening theme of our trip, flying out to the source found us viewing countless oil platforms, and in some cases, drilling rigs, all of which comprised the oily backdrop of BP's disaster.

Can you help? If you can afford to contribute, please keep Truthout free for everyone with a donation.

The stench of the oil began to infiltrate my nose and burn my eyes long before they arrived at the source. Black oil clouds lurked below choppy blue seas in every direction as a virtual cityscape of ships and drill rigs loomed on the horizon. They appeared to rise out of the Gulf as we approached.

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

We were cleared to fly at 1,500', well below the FAA mandated 3,000'. My stomach sank as we began to bank to our right, starting the first of countless clockwise circles around the war-like scene.

A giant flame - the burning off of methane and benzene - roared off the side of a rig, leaving a chemical gas floating lazily to the south as it rose.

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

Cory, our young pilot, flew us directly through this cloud. The plane shuddered in the turbulence. I felt sick and dizzy after one breath, and with each future pass I held my breath, all through the entirety of the southern portion of the circle, to avoid chemical exposure.

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

The scene felt like death - an epic example of manmade destruction, damage, and mayhem let loose upon the earth.

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

It is as unnatural a scene as one can imagine. That the Gulf, its marine life, ecosystems, and all the life that depend upon it are not under constant assault from this catastrophe is unthinkable.

As our small plane perpetually banked to the right, Erika shot hundreds upon hundreds of photos of this terrible scene.

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

While staring at the appalling scene scudding by below us, I scribbled notes like:

Death in the blue
Oil makes blue Gulf appear like cancer-ridden areas
Couldn't look more unnatural
Burning eyes
Trouble breathing
Gulf looks bruised

The thick, humid, chemical-laden air astounded me. I wondered about the health of the hundreds of people down in the ships, working around the clock to try to stop the volcano of oil.

After we'd taken as many photos as we could, our eyes sufficiently burning, we all agreed to head back towards the coast. The flight was long enough, hovering over countless wells and platforms, for me to ponder what our dependence on oil is costing the planet.

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

We diverted our journey to fly over the Chandeleur Islands, to see yet more chaotic booming, oil-burnt marsh, sheen and threatened birds.

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

Adm. Thad Allen warned of too much optimism towards the cap. "It remains likely that we will return to the containment process using this new stacking cap connected to the risers to attempt to collect up to 80,000 barrels of oil per day until the relief well is completed," he said.

I find it interesting that he, BP and President Obama have all cited this capacity to collect up to 80,000 barrels of oil per day, despite the fact that the high-end government estimate of daily flow is 60,000 barrels.

Yet the disaster continues. So far, approximately 1.82 million gallons of total chemical dispersant have been applied, 348 controlled oil burns have been conducted, and if daily flow estimates of 100,000 barrels per day, provided by independent scientists, are correct, 34 Exxon Valdezes worth of oil have already been injected into the Gulf of Mexico.

As of July 14, approximately 572 miles of Gulf Coast shoreline were oiled, a number which does not include cumulative impacts. While most of the oil remains submerged (for now), we already have vast areas of coastline oiled: 328 miles in Louisiana, 108 miles in Mississippi (nearly their entire coastline), 67 miles in Alabama and 69 miles in Florida.

I hope others are as enraged as I am by the ongoing ticker tape of BP's stock price in news reports about the disaster, like this one (hyperlink 'this one' with
http://www.theage.com.au/world/gulf-states-wait-in-hope-as-cap-stifles-disast... from Friday: "News of the development just before Wall Street's close lifted BP shares. They added $US2.74, or 7.6 per cent, to close at $US38.92, still well below the $US60.48 they fetched before the rig explosion."

Why should we give a damn about the value of BP's stock while their criminal negligence is annihilating the Gulf of Mexico?

While the cap-praising, and BP stock value glee continues, biologists recently reported the finding of at least another 300-400 oiled pelicans and hundreds of terns in the largest seabird nesting area along the Louisiana coast.

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

This finding underscores the fact that the official tallies of oiled wildlife significantly underestimate the broad scope of the destruction. So far, roughly 3,000 oiled birds have been collected across the Gulf, so this finding alone is a significant percent increase.

"This is not like Exxon Valdez, where you had tens of thousands of birds killed all at once," said Ken Rosenberg, director of conservation science at the Cornell laboratory. "It's more insidious because it is literally happening in waves and it's happening over and over again as the birds are moving around."

Friday, Louisiana's St. Bernard Parish government reported that there have been at least 31 oil sightings in parish waters and on shorelines in just the past 48 hours. More oil-soaked birds, both dead and alive, have been reported, and the oil continues to spread. Much of this is happening around the Chandeleur Islands, where we'd already logged the futile booming.

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

Photo by Erika Blumenfeld © 2010

Already, scientists are reporting how BP's oil disaster is altering the food web in the Gulf. On July 14, the Associated Press reported, "Scientists are reporting early signs that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is altering the marine food web by killing or tainting some creatures and spurring the growth of others more suited to a fouled environment. Near the spill site, researchers have documented a massive die-off of pyrosomes - cucumber-shaped, gelatinous organisms fed on by endangered sea turtles."

The scope and scale of this disaster are impossible to communicate. While flying in giant, arcing circles around the source, I saw nothing but oil in every direction. Jonathan Henderson works for the Gulf Restoration Network. While looking out at the literal sea of oil beneath us, he reminded us that, at the moment, 75,000 square miles of the Gulf are covered in oil.