Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Dispatch from Gaza: Hind Khoudary
Hind Khoudary: Marhaba! (Hello) Let me show you where I am right now: I’m on a rooftop because it’s very hot and we don’t have any electricity, so this is the only way we can get some fresh air. I’m displaced in Deir al Balah right now and I have been displaced since November.
EIP: You said that it’s 8pm right now and that you’re on a rooftop; can you describe where you are and what it looks like and what it feels like and what you smell and take us to Gaza for a second?
HIND: So the main reason we’re on this rooftop is because this is the house of Motaz Al Azaiza, our colleague, who is hosting a group of journalists and friends at his house because we were displaced. He’s originally from Der El Balach.
After Motaz left, we stayed in his house. We’re a group of friends and journalists who have been covering this together since day one and have been displaced together. It’s our support system; we report in the morning and then we sit down and watch the sunset—here, I’ll show you the sunset— watching it is something I do every single day because it’s the only thing that keeps me going and revives my soul. We have not been eating for the past couple of weeks, especially after the Rafah invasion. No food is coming in, so every single day at this time we start searching for food. We ate noodles for the first week and then we started eating bread with cheese from another supermarket that started making dairy like cheese, goat cheese and lebneh.
The boys went grocery shopping and then we’re going to start eating in the next hour. We report all day and then just hang out here at night because it’s the only thing we can do. We can’t go out; we don’t have anywhere safe. Anything could happen any minute, so we try to find calmness and peace in those times where we’re sitting and not doing anything.
I think I’ve been dehydrated the past couple of months, which is so hard in the summer. We don’t drink a lot of water not only because we can’t find drinking water, but because there’s no access to bathrooms, we try not to eat or drink as much as possible. These are very small details that we don’t really say when we’re reporting, but it’s not just reporting this, but about living it and I think this is the hardest part.
I have been away from my family for for eight months now. They all left Gaza because it was unbearable for them to stay and they had the opportunity to leave so they left. I’m the only person who stayed in Gaza and I feel so sad, and so homesick. I miss my family. I miss my husband. I miss everything before October 7 actually.
EIP: Can you take us to that moment? Maybe it was October 7th, or maybe it was a few weeks later, but those first few weeks where this happened; where were you? What were you doing? What were the conversations?
HIND: On October 7, I was at home. I didn’t do any reporting; I was just shocked, you know? Then I went out reporting on the third day of this war because I’m a freelance journalist so I didn’t know who I wanted to work with or what I was gonna do. I didn’t know what was happening— no one did. I lived with my husband in Istanbul for the past four years, and we chose to settle back in Gaza in August. We shipped everything— we brought all our furniture and everything from Istanbul, so we were shocked that this happened.
Since the second or third day, when I started reporting, I did not see my family for an entire hour. I used to grab some moments with them, but, for example, my mom traveled without me seeing her. My husband traveled when I was in the north and he was in the south. There was no way to evacuate, so he left without me seeing him. My mom, the same thing. I was only able to see my brothers before they left. But it was very hard.
I left the house not thinking that I would never go back. I remember taking a t-shirt and a pair of jeans and that’s it, you know? I always thought that I’d go back home — and in the first couple of weeks I did go back home, but every time I went home, I never thought ‘okay, this is it.’ The last time I left, I took a couple of socks and a couple more t -shirts, because I felt like I was going to be stationed in another place. That was the last time I went home, and then when I evacuated south, I found this random Instagram reel, where I saw my house bombed. Khalas, ya3ni. It’s not there anymore. That’s when I started reminding myself, ‘okay, so I don’t have anything to wear. I don’t have a closet. I don’t have anything left. All I have right now is my phone and my laptop.
EIP: You saw it on a reel? You were just on the internet, and that’s how you found out?
HIND: Exactly. I never imagined that this is how I’d know that my house was bombed. I cried so much that day. I remember my heart crying, it was so painful, because it’s something my father built, and my father passed away in 2012, and it was the only thing that reminds me of him.
Since then, every time I go to a place, and it’s wiped off and reduced to rubble, I remember the house, and I remember that I’m not even able to go and see my house —even if it was just rubble— because we’re not allowed to go there.
It’s a cycle of violence, a cycle of heartaches and heartbreaks. But at the same time, I continue to report because I feel like people need to know what’s going on, but it’s not easy. There were a couple of times that I was mentally collapsing and physically collapsing and emotionally collapsing— it’s not easy, it’s very hard but I need to do this.
EIP: Do you remember the last conversation you had with your husband when he was still in Gaza? What was going through your head when you talked last?
HIND: laughing I think we were fighting about the fact that he didn’t want me to report and go to the field because he was terrified. He found me in the middle of a battlefield, like literally in the middle of a battlefield, and he could not do anything about it. I’m a very stubborn person, and of course you wouldn’t like your partner to be in the middle of airstrikes and bombs and everything. He was terrified. That was the last conversation we had, that I wanted to go report and this was it. I remember the last time I saw him in Gaza, I wanted to visit him and it had been a month without seeing him. This was November and I went to see him and hug him, then we learned one of our best friends was killed. I literally had only an hour to see him before my friend was going to pick me up to go back to the office. I spent the hour crying with him and then I went back to the office.
Even having time to enjoy with the people close to you, you can’t because you’re overwhelmed with everything going on. We lost a lot of dear people, you know? It’s very hard and I think we did not have time to grieve, and to express or process the amount of loss. This is all going to start showing in the next few years because we have been squeezed emotionally—we’re trapped. I’m very happy that my family is not here because I won’t feel worried about them. I won’t feel like anything’s going to hurt them. This is the only thing that’s giving me a little bit of comfort, let’s say.
EIP: This all seems so intense and I’m a journalist and have never even come close to covering something like this. What is a day in the life for you in terms of your job? Like, how do you choose which sort of event to cover?
HIND: It depends. For example, a couple of days ago, it was 5am when my colleagues woke me up, like ‘Hind, they [Israel] targeted a UN school.’ There’s no coffee, there’s no wake up, there’s no ‘wash your face’, there’s no ‘comb your hair’— nothing. You just start running.
Even now as I’m talking to you, there could be some huge explosion or a huge event and I’d leave you and go. I don’t ever remember choosing what to cover. It comes to you. You don’t choose it; it happens, you go there, you start reporting and this is how it works.
EIP: Do you have any sort of anecdotes or memories or stories of people that come to mind?
HIND: My uncle. My cousin. My friend— my friends. The people I used to hang out with— like shisha hangouts every night— they were killed. My uncle, when we had Eid Al Adha in Ramadan, used to call me, I used to call him. We used to gather. He’s not there. My uncle was killed in the Al Shifa operation, and I remember that they said that he was killed, but they do not know where or how, then there was a photo circulating on social media of people killed in the Al Shifa operation, and I zoomed into the picture, like ‘This looks like my uncle! Is that him? No, no no, it’s not him.’ After they withdrew from the area, my mom was like this photo is your uncle, and I see him killed laying on the floor and on his lap is my cousin, and beside him is his sister in law, and a group of people. This is my uncle. Now every time I see people killed I don’t look at the photos; I don’t want to recognize anyone.
EIP: Do you get a chance to talk about this with the people you’re working with, or the friends you’re living with?
HIND: All the time when we’re sitting together on the rooftop, we ask, ‘okay, so if we get an airstrike what’s gonna happen?’ I had this conversation yesterday with one of my friends, who said, ‘No, maybe you’re gonna fly to another street, ‘ and I’m like ‘Okay, but are we gonna hear anything if it happens? Then I’m like ‘no no it’s not gonna happen.’ We’re traumatized, and all of these scenes and all of these memories come to you every single time.
I remember when we were in the office back in Gaza City, I always had a bottle of water with me because if anything happened and the building was bombed, I wanted to have some water with me. Many civilians were trapped under the rubble, but I could have sips of water and I could live more. That’s how I used to think.
Every time you see someone, bil sudfa (by coincidence) in the market or something, we do not recognize each other. Everyone’s pale, everyone lost a lot of weight, everyone’s sad and overwhelmed. It’s so heartbreaking actually.
EIP: You kind of mentioned it before, but I’d like to go into it a little more. What is the reason you stayed? What is the importance of being a journalist in Gaza in this moment?
HIND: The first thing is the fact of loving Gaza itself. Like, I’m in love with Gaza. Like, everyone knows that and always tells me, enti bint Gazeh (you are a daughter of Gaza) I’m a Gazzeweya, as in I’m originally a Gazan. I’m so connected to this place; I’m connected to the sea. I’m connected to the sky, I’m connected to the people, to the clouds, to everything. When I was away in Istanbul, I used to tell my husband every single day, ‘I want to go back to Gaza’. Every single day, ‘I want to go back. I want to go back.’
So, the thing that’s making me report is my connection to Gaza. The second thing is that I wanted to report about Gaza and about the Gazan people. I always wanted to uplift their voice.
The third thing is when people interact and are engaging with everything we’re doing, and the amount of solidarity we’re receiving, it really gives us a very big push to keep going.
I think these are the three main reasons. The biggest reason is to continue the journey of our fellows that were killed by the Israeli forces.
I remember posting and then going to report or posting something and then not having internet connection, then when we opened our Instagrams, and saw the amount of engagement and the amount of interaction and the amount of followers we received, we were shocked, to be honest.
I never imagined that a fifteen second video would really change people’s thinking and how they perceive it [the situation]. For me, I tried to do very short videos or talk on Instagram very normally and naturally [candidly]. I never overthought what I wanted to say and I think that was the reason why I really connected to the people. It’s because I’m a very normal person; I’m just saying what’s happening, you know? When we found people were really talking about us, like if you had no internet for one day, you’d find people asking about you.
We found how important it was; people are not relying on news outlets and TVs anymore, they’re relying on us and that’s where the responsibility increased, we found that we had weight on our shoulders. We have to write, we have to report, we have to tweet. We’re the source for a lot of people. There has been a very big impact and the reason, the main thing is, Gazan journalists were able to be the voice, and despite the fact that no foreign journalists or international journalists are coming in, we’re doing a great job.
Topics:
Filed under:
Location:
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Dispatch from Gaza: Hind Khoudary",
"author" : "Hind Khoudary",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/dispatch-from-gaza-hind-khoudary",
"date" : "2024-08-30 12:05:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/2024_EIP_Hind_Khoudary_Quote_S1.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Hind Khoudary: Marhaba! (Hello) Let me show you where I am right now: I’m on a rooftop because it’s very hot and we don’t have any electricity, so this is the only way we can get some fresh air. I’m displaced in Deir al Balah right now and I have been displaced since November.EIP: You said that it’s 8pm right now and that you’re on a rooftop; can you describe where you are and what it looks like and what it feels like and what you smell and take us to Gaza for a second?HIND: So the main reason we’re on this rooftop is because this is the house of Motaz Al Azaiza, our colleague, who is hosting a group of journalists and friends at his house because we were displaced. He’s originally from Der El Balach.After Motaz left, we stayed in his house. We’re a group of friends and journalists who have been covering this together since day one and have been displaced together. It’s our support system; we report in the morning and then we sit down and watch the sunset—here, I’ll show you the sunset— watching it is something I do every single day because it’s the only thing that keeps me going and revives my soul. We have not been eating for the past couple of weeks, especially after the Rafah invasion. No food is coming in, so every single day at this time we start searching for food. We ate noodles for the first week and then we started eating bread with cheese from another supermarket that started making dairy like cheese, goat cheese and lebneh.The boys went grocery shopping and then we’re going to start eating in the next hour. We report all day and then just hang out here at night because it’s the only thing we can do. We can’t go out; we don’t have anywhere safe. Anything could happen any minute, so we try to find calmness and peace in those times where we’re sitting and not doing anything.I think I’ve been dehydrated the past couple of months, which is so hard in the summer. We don’t drink a lot of water not only because we can’t find drinking water, but because there’s no access to bathrooms, we try not to eat or drink as much as possible. These are very small details that we don’t really say when we’re reporting, but it’s not just reporting this, but about living it and I think this is the hardest part.I have been away from my family for for eight months now. They all left Gaza because it was unbearable for them to stay and they had the opportunity to leave so they left. I’m the only person who stayed in Gaza and I feel so sad, and so homesick. I miss my family. I miss my husband. I miss everything before October 7 actually.EIP: Can you take us to that moment? Maybe it was October 7th, or maybe it was a few weeks later, but those first few weeks where this happened; where were you? What were you doing? What were the conversations?HIND: On October 7, I was at home. I didn’t do any reporting; I was just shocked, you know? Then I went out reporting on the third day of this war because I’m a freelance journalist so I didn’t know who I wanted to work with or what I was gonna do. I didn’t know what was happening— no one did. I lived with my husband in Istanbul for the past four years, and we chose to settle back in Gaza in August. We shipped everything— we brought all our furniture and everything from Istanbul, so we were shocked that this happened.Since the second or third day, when I started reporting, I did not see my family for an entire hour. I used to grab some moments with them, but, for example, my mom traveled without me seeing her. My husband traveled when I was in the north and he was in the south. There was no way to evacuate, so he left without me seeing him. My mom, the same thing. I was only able to see my brothers before they left. But it was very hard.I left the house not thinking that I would never go back. I remember taking a t-shirt and a pair of jeans and that’s it, you know? I always thought that I’d go back home — and in the first couple of weeks I did go back home, but every time I went home, I never thought ‘okay, this is it.’ The last time I left, I took a couple of socks and a couple more t -shirts, because I felt like I was going to be stationed in another place. That was the last time I went home, and then when I evacuated south, I found this random Instagram reel, where I saw my house bombed. Khalas, ya3ni. It’s not there anymore. That’s when I started reminding myself, ‘okay, so I don’t have anything to wear. I don’t have a closet. I don’t have anything left. All I have right now is my phone and my laptop.EIP: You saw it on a reel? You were just on the internet, and that’s how you found out?HIND: Exactly. I never imagined that this is how I’d know that my house was bombed. I cried so much that day. I remember my heart crying, it was so painful, because it’s something my father built, and my father passed away in 2012, and it was the only thing that reminds me of him.Since then, every time I go to a place, and it’s wiped off and reduced to rubble, I remember the house, and I remember that I’m not even able to go and see my house —even if it was just rubble— because we’re not allowed to go there.It’s a cycle of violence, a cycle of heartaches and heartbreaks. But at the same time, I continue to report because I feel like people need to know what’s going on, but it’s not easy. There were a couple of times that I was mentally collapsing and physically collapsing and emotionally collapsing— it’s not easy, it’s very hard but I need to do this.EIP: Do you remember the last conversation you had with your husband when he was still in Gaza? What was going through your head when you talked last?HIND: laughing I think we were fighting about the fact that he didn’t want me to report and go to the field because he was terrified. He found me in the middle of a battlefield, like literally in the middle of a battlefield, and he could not do anything about it. I’m a very stubborn person, and of course you wouldn’t like your partner to be in the middle of airstrikes and bombs and everything. He was terrified. That was the last conversation we had, that I wanted to go report and this was it. I remember the last time I saw him in Gaza, I wanted to visit him and it had been a month without seeing him. This was November and I went to see him and hug him, then we learned one of our best friends was killed. I literally had only an hour to see him before my friend was going to pick me up to go back to the office. I spent the hour crying with him and then I went back to the office.Even having time to enjoy with the people close to you, you can’t because you’re overwhelmed with everything going on. We lost a lot of dear people, you know? It’s very hard and I think we did not have time to grieve, and to express or process the amount of loss. This is all going to start showing in the next few years because we have been squeezed emotionally—we’re trapped. I’m very happy that my family is not here because I won’t feel worried about them. I won’t feel like anything’s going to hurt them. This is the only thing that’s giving me a little bit of comfort, let’s say.EIP: This all seems so intense and I’m a journalist and have never even come close to covering something like this. What is a day in the life for you in terms of your job? Like, how do you choose which sort of event to cover?HIND: It depends. For example, a couple of days ago, it was 5am when my colleagues woke me up, like ‘Hind, they [Israel] targeted a UN school.’ There’s no coffee, there’s no wake up, there’s no ‘wash your face’, there’s no ‘comb your hair’— nothing. You just start running.Even now as I’m talking to you, there could be some huge explosion or a huge event and I’d leave you and go. I don’t ever remember choosing what to cover. It comes to you. You don’t choose it; it happens, you go there, you start reporting and this is how it works.EIP: Do you have any sort of anecdotes or memories or stories of people that come to mind?HIND: My uncle. My cousin. My friend— my friends. The people I used to hang out with— like shisha hangouts every night— they were killed. My uncle, when we had Eid Al Adha in Ramadan, used to call me, I used to call him. We used to gather. He’s not there. My uncle was killed in the Al Shifa operation, and I remember that they said that he was killed, but they do not know where or how, then there was a photo circulating on social media of people killed in the Al Shifa operation, and I zoomed into the picture, like ‘This looks like my uncle! Is that him? No, no no, it’s not him.’ After they withdrew from the area, my mom was like this photo is your uncle, and I see him killed laying on the floor and on his lap is my cousin, and beside him is his sister in law, and a group of people. This is my uncle. Now every time I see people killed I don’t look at the photos; I don’t want to recognize anyone.EIP: Do you get a chance to talk about this with the people you’re working with, or the friends you’re living with?HIND: All the time when we’re sitting together on the rooftop, we ask, ‘okay, so if we get an airstrike what’s gonna happen?’ I had this conversation yesterday with one of my friends, who said, ‘No, maybe you’re gonna fly to another street, ‘ and I’m like ‘Okay, but are we gonna hear anything if it happens? Then I’m like ‘no no it’s not gonna happen.’ We’re traumatized, and all of these scenes and all of these memories come to you every single time.I remember when we were in the office back in Gaza City, I always had a bottle of water with me because if anything happened and the building was bombed, I wanted to have some water with me. Many civilians were trapped under the rubble, but I could have sips of water and I could live more. That’s how I used to think.Every time you see someone, bil sudfa (by coincidence) in the market or something, we do not recognize each other. Everyone’s pale, everyone lost a lot of weight, everyone’s sad and overwhelmed. It’s so heartbreaking actually.EIP: You kind of mentioned it before, but I’d like to go into it a little more. What is the reason you stayed? What is the importance of being a journalist in Gaza in this moment?HIND: The first thing is the fact of loving Gaza itself. Like, I’m in love with Gaza. Like, everyone knows that and always tells me, enti bint Gazeh (you are a daughter of Gaza) I’m a Gazzeweya, as in I’m originally a Gazan. I’m so connected to this place; I’m connected to the sea. I’m connected to the sky, I’m connected to the people, to the clouds, to everything. When I was away in Istanbul, I used to tell my husband every single day, ‘I want to go back to Gaza’. Every single day, ‘I want to go back. I want to go back.’So, the thing that’s making me report is my connection to Gaza. The second thing is that I wanted to report about Gaza and about the Gazan people. I always wanted to uplift their voice.The third thing is when people interact and are engaging with everything we’re doing, and the amount of solidarity we’re receiving, it really gives us a very big push to keep going.I think these are the three main reasons. The biggest reason is to continue the journey of our fellows that were killed by the Israeli forces.I remember posting and then going to report or posting something and then not having internet connection, then when we opened our Instagrams, and saw the amount of engagement and the amount of interaction and the amount of followers we received, we were shocked, to be honest.I never imagined that a fifteen second video would really change people’s thinking and how they perceive it [the situation]. For me, I tried to do very short videos or talk on Instagram very normally and naturally [candidly]. I never overthought what I wanted to say and I think that was the reason why I really connected to the people. It’s because I’m a very normal person; I’m just saying what’s happening, you know? When we found people were really talking about us, like if you had no internet for one day, you’d find people asking about you. We found how important it was; people are not relying on news outlets and TVs anymore, they’re relying on us and that’s where the responsibility increased, we found that we had weight on our shoulders. We have to write, we have to report, we have to tweet. We’re the source for a lot of people. There has been a very big impact and the reason, the main thing is, Gazan journalists were able to be the voice, and despite the fact that no foreign journalists or international journalists are coming in, we’re doing a great job."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "What We Can Learn from the Inuit Mapping of the Arctic",
"author" : "William Rankin",
"category" : "excerpts",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/inuit-mapping-arctic",
"date" : "2025-12-02 12:49:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Template-Inuit_Map.jpg",
"excerpt" : "This excerpt is from RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY by William Rankin, published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by William Rankin.",
"content" : "This excerpt is from RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY by William Rankin, published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by William Rankin.In 1994, the Berkeley geographer Bernard Nietschmann made a famous claim about the power of mapping in the global struggle for Indigenous rights. It was a claim about how the tools of historical oppression could be reclaimed by the oppressed: “More Indigenous territory has been claimed by maps than by guns. This assertion has its corollary: more Indigenous territory can be defended and reclaimed by maps than by guns.” The idea was that by putting themselves on the map—documenting their lives and their communities—Indigenous peoples would not be so easy to erase. Nietschmann was working in Central America, often heroically, during a time of violence and displacement, and he inspired a generation of researchers and activists interested in flipping the power structure of state-centric cartography on its head.But despite the spread of bottom-up mapping projects in the past 30 years, perhaps the most successful example of Indigenous mapping actually predates Nietschmann’s call to action. Just one year prior, in 1993, the Inuit of northern Canada signed a treaty creating the territory of Nunavut—the largest self-governing Indigenous territory in the world—and mapping was central to both the negotiation and the outcome. It remains one of the rare cases of Indigenous geographic knowledge decolonizing the world map.So why hasn’t the Inuit project been replicable elsewhere, despite decades more work on Indigenous mapping? The answer lies in the very idea of territory itself, and in particular in one of the most threatened parts of the Inuit landscape today: ice. The winter extent of Arctic sea ice reached a record low earlier this year, and a new low is predicted for the winter ahead. Yet the shrinking ice isn’t just an unshakable sign of Arctic warming; it’s also a poignant reminder of what Nietschmann got right—and what he missed—about the relationship between cartography and power. In particular, it shows how Inuit conceptions of space, place, and belonging are rooted in a dynamic, seasonal geography that’s often completely invisible on Western-style maps.The story begins in the 1970s, when the young Inuit leader Tagak Curley, today considered a “living father” of Nunavut, hired the Arctic anthropologist Milton Freeman to lead a collaborative mapping project of unprecedented scope and ambition. Freeman taught at McMaster University about an hour outside Toronto; he was white, but his wife, Mini Aodla Freeman, was Inuit (she was a translator and later a celebrated writer). Freeman assembled a team of other anthropologists and Arctic geographers—also white—to split the mapping into regions. They called their method the “map biography.” The goal was to capture the life history of every Inuit hunter in cartographic form, recording each person’s memories of where, at any point in their life, they had found roughly three dozen species of wildlife—from caribou and ptarmigan to beluga, narwhal, and seaweed. Each map biography would be a testimony of personal experience.After the mapping was split into regions, about 150 field-workers—almost all Inuit—traveled between 33 northern settlements with a stack of government-issued topographic maps to conduct interviews. Each hunter was asked to draw lines or shapes directly on the maps with colored pens or pencils. The interviewers stayed about 10 weeks in each settlement, visiting most hunters in their own homes, and the final participation rate was an astonishing 85 percent of all adult Inuit men. They collected 1,600 biographies in total, some on maps as large as 10 feet square.Then came the cartographers, back in Ontario: one professor and a team of about 15 students. The first map below (Figure 1) shows how the individual map biographies were transformed into summary maps, one for each community. For every species, the overlap of all hunters’ testimony became a single blob, and then blobs for all species were overlaid to make a complete map. The second map (Figure 2) shows one of the finished atlas pages along the Northwest Passage. The immediate impression is that the Arctic is in no way an empty expanse of barren land and unclaimed mineral riches. It is dense with human activity, necessary for personal and collective survival. The community maps combined to show almost uninterrupted Inuit presence stretching from northern Labrador to the Alaska border.Figure 1: Top left is a simplified version of a “map biography” from a single Inuit hunter, showing his birthplace and the places he hunted caribou, fox, wolf, grizzly bear, moose, and fish at various points in his life. (The original biography would have been drawn over a familiar government-issued topographic map.) The other three maps show how multiple biographies were then combined into patterned blobs for all hunters and all species. (Map courtesy of William Rankin/ Penguin Random House LLC.)Figure 2: A two-page spread from the finished atlas showing the seven kinds of animals hunted from the settlements of Igloolik and Hall Beach, in an area about 500 by 300 miles: caribou, polar bear, walrus, whale, fish, seal, and waterfowl. (Because of the large number of individual species recorded in the map biographies, some species were grouped together in the final maps.) The blobs are a strong, even overpowering figure atop an unusually subtle ground. Notice in particular how difficult it is to distinguish land and water areas, since the dark shading extends beyond coastlines even for individual species. This map in fact includes the Northwest Passage—the famous sea route around the tip of North America—but the crucial Fury and Hecla Strait (named after the two British ships that first learned of, but did not navigate, the passage in 1822) is almost entirely obscured. (Map courtesy of William Rankin/ Penguin Random House LLC.)Nothing about the cartography was meant to be subversive—or even controversial. For the cartographers, the only message was that the Inuit hunted a variety of species over large areas. But look again at the finished map in Figure 2. Yes, a foreground is layered over a background in the usual way, but the visual argument is strikingly different from a typical layered map in, say, a census atlas, where the foreground data doesn’t stray beyond crisp pre-existing borders. Here, in contrast, even the basic distinction between land and water is often obscure. The maps’ content is the facts of species and area; the maps’ argument is that Inuit culture is grounded in a substantially different understanding of territory than the one Western cartography was designed to show.As a result, this new atlas shifted the negotiations between the Inuit and the Canadian government decisively. Not only did the maps provide a legal claim to the Inuit-used land, documenting 750,000 square miles—an area the size of Mexico—but also a claim to the sea, showing an additional 325,000 square miles offshore.It took many years for the full implications to play out, but the erosion of the land–water boundary became central to the Inuit vision. At the time, wildlife on land was managed by the regional Northwest Territories government, while offshore marine species were the responsibility of centralized federal agencies. The Inuit used the atlas to win agreement for a new agency with equal responsibility over both. At the same time, the Inuit also improved their position by offering their offshore claims as evidence the Canadian government would use—not just in the 1980s, but even as recently as 2024—to resist foreign encroachment in the Northwest Passage. The final agreement in 1993 granted the Inuit $1.15 billion in cash, title to about 17 percent of the land in the “settlement area,” representation on several new management agencies, a share of all natural-resource revenue, broad hunting and fishing rights, and a promise that the territory of Nunavut would come into being on April 1, 1999.It’s easy to count this project as a success story, but it’s also important to remember that it depended both on the government’s own interest in negotiation and on the willingness of Indigenous peoples, or at least their leadership, to translate their sense of space onto a map, solidifying what had previously been fluid. It also meant abandoning claims to ancestral lands that had not been used in living experience and provoking new boundary disputes with neighboring, and previously amicable, Indigenous groups. These tradeoffs have led some scholars to critique mapping as only “drawing Indigenous peoples into a modern capitalist economy while maintaining the centrality of state power.” But for the Inuit, the alternatives seemed quite a bit worse.With the more recent proliferation of Indigenous mapping initiatives elsewhere—in Latin America, Africa, and Asia—the tradeoffs have been harder to evaluate. Most governments have shown little interest in addressing Indigenous claims, and when bottom-up mapping has been pushed instead by international nonprofits interested in environmental conservation, the downsides of mapping have often come without any of the upsides.Yet it’s not just the attitude of the state that’s been different; it’s also the cartography. In nearly all these other cases, the finished maps have shown none of the territorial inversion of the Inuit atlas. Instead, Indigenous knowledge is either overlaid on an existing base map in perfectly legible form, or it’s used to construct a new base map of a remarkably conventional sort, using the same visual vocabulary as Western maps.Did the Inuit project just show the data so clearly that its deeper implications were immediately apparent? No, not really, since the great irony here is that the cartographers were in fact quite dissatisfied. Follow-up surveys reached the conclusion that the atlas was only “moderately successful” by their usual mapmaking standards.The Inuit atlas was a kind of happy accident—one that doesn’t conform to any of the usual stories about Indigenous mapping, in Canada or elsewhere. The lesson here isn’t that maps should be as Indigenous as possible, or that they should be as orthodox as possible. These maps were neither. My take is simpler: the atlas shows that maps can, in fact, support alternative conceptions of space—and that showing space in a different way is crucial.The possibilities aren’t endless, but they’re broader than we might think. Plotting different sorts of data is a necessary step, but no less important are the relationships between that data and the assumptions of what lies below. For the Inuit, these assumptions were about land, water, and territory. These were in the background both visually and politically, and they were upstaged by an unexpectedly provocative foreground. The layers did not behave as they were meant to, and despite the tradeoffs, they allowed an Indigenous community to fight for their home and their way of life."
}
,
{
"title" : "Malcolm X and Islam: U.S. Islamophobia Didn’t Start with 9/11",
"author" : "Collis Browne",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/malcolm-x-and-islam",
"date" : "2025-11-27 14:58:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/life-malcolm-3.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Anti-Muslim hate has been deeply engrained and intertwined with anti-Black racism in the United States for well over 60 years, far longer than most of us are taught or are aware.As the EIP team dug into design research for the new magazine format of our first anniversary issue, we revisited 1960s issues of LIFE magazine—and landed on the March 1965 edition, published just after the assassination of Malcolm X.The reporting is staggering in its openness: blatantly anti-Black and anti-Muslim in a way that normalizes white supremacy at its most fundamental level. The anti-Blackness, while horrifying, is not surprising. This was a moment when, despite the formal dismantling of Jim Crow, more than 10,000 “sundown towns” still existed across the country, segregation remained the norm, and racial terror structured daily life.What shocked our team was the nakedness of the anti-Muslim propaganda.This was not yet framed as anti-Arab in the way Western Islamophobia is often framed today. Arab and Middle Eastern people were not present in the narrative at all. Instead, what was being targeted was organized resistance to white supremacy—specifically, the adoption of Islam by Black communities as a source of political power, dignity, and self-determination. From this moment, we can trace a clear ideological line from anti-Muslim sentiment rooted in anti-Black racism in the 1960s to the anti-Arab, anti-MENA, and anti-SWANA racism that saturates Western culture today.The reporting leaned heavily on familiar colonial tropes: the implication of “inter-tribal” violence, the suggestion that resistance to white supremacy is itself a form of reverse racism or inherent aggression, and the detached, almost smug tone surrounding the violent death of a cultural leader.Of course, the Nation of Islam and Elijah Muhammad represent only expressions within an immense and diverse global Muslim world—spanning Morocco, Sudan, the Gulf, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, and far beyond. Yet U.S. cultural and military power has long blurred these distinctions, collapsing complexity into a singular enemy image.It is worth naming this history clearly and connecting the dots: U.S. Islamophobia did not begin with 9/11. It is rooted in a much older racial project—one that has always braided anti-Blackness and anti-Muslim sentiment together in service of white supremacy, at home and abroad."
}
,
{
"title" : "The Billionaire Who Bought the Met Gala: What the Bezoses’ Check Means for Fashion’s Future",
"author" : "Louis Pisano",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-billionaire-who-bought-the-met-gala",
"date" : "2025-11-27 10:41:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_TBesos_MET_Galajpg.jpg",
"excerpt" : "On the morning of November 17, 2025, the Metropolitan Museum of Art announced that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos would serve as the sole lead sponsors of the 2026 Met Gala and its accompanying Costume Institute exhibition, “Costume Art”. Saint Laurent and Condé Nast were listed as supporting partners. To be clear, this is not a co-sponsorship. It is not “in association with.” It is the first time in the modern history of the gala that the headline slot, previously occupied by Louis Vuitton, TikTok, or a discreet old-money surname, has been handed to a tech billionaire and his wife. The donation amount remains undisclosed, but sources familiar with the negotiations place it comfortably north of seven figures, in line with the checks that helped the event raise $22 million last year.",
"content" : "On the morning of November 17, 2025, the Metropolitan Museum of Art announced that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos would serve as the sole lead sponsors of the 2026 Met Gala and its accompanying Costume Institute exhibition, “Costume Art”. Saint Laurent and Condé Nast were listed as supporting partners. To be clear, this is not a co-sponsorship. It is not “in association with.” It is the first time in the modern history of the gala that the headline slot, previously occupied by Louis Vuitton, TikTok, or a discreet old-money surname, has been handed to a tech billionaire and his wife. The donation amount remains undisclosed, but sources familiar with the negotiations place it comfortably north of seven figures, in line with the checks that helped the event raise $22 million last year.Within hours of the announcement, the Met’s Instagram post was overrun with comments proclaiming the gala “dead.” On TikTok and X, users paired declarations of late-stage capitalism with memes of the museum staircase wrapped in Amazon boxes. Not that this was unexpected. Anyone paying attention could see it coming for over a decade.When billionaires like Bezos, whose Amazon warehouses reported injury rates nearly double the industry average in 2024 and whose fashion supply chain has been linked to forced labor and poverty wages globally, acquire influence over prestigious institutions like the Met Museum through sponsorships, it risks commodifying fashion as a tool for not only personal but corporate image-laundering. To put it simply: who’s going to bite the hand that feeds them? Designers, editors, and curators will have little choice but to turn a blind eye to keep the money flowing and the lights on.Back in 2012, Amazon co-chaired the “Schiaparelli and Prada” gala, and honorary chair Jeff Bezos showed up in a perfectly respectable tux with then-wife MacKenzie Scott by his side and an Anna Wintour-advised pocket square. After his divorce from Scott in 2019, Bezos made a solo appearance at the Met Gala, signaling that he was becoming a familiar presence in fashion circles on his own. Of course, by that point, he already had Lauren Sánchez. Fast forward to 2020: print advertising was crumbling, and Anna Wintour co-signed The Drop, a set of limited CFDA collections sold exclusively on Amazon, giving the company a veneer of fashion credibility. By 2024, Sánchez made her Met debut in a mirrored Oscar de la Renta gown personally approved by Wintour, signaling that the Bezos orbit was now squarely inside the fashion world.Then, the political world started to catch up, as it always does. In January 2025, Sánchez and Bezos sat three rows behind President-elect Donald Trump at the inauguration. Amazon wrote a one-million-dollar check to Trump’s inaugural fund, and Bezos, once mocked by Trump as “Jeff Bozo,” publicly congratulated Trump on an “extraordinary political comeback.” By June 2025, Bezos and Sánchez became cultural and political mainstays: Sánchez married Bezos in Venice, wearing a Dolce & Gabbana gown Wintour had helped select. This landed Sánchez the digital cover of American Vogue almost immediately afterward. Wintour quietly handed day-to-day control of the magazine to Chloe Malle but kept the Met Gala, the global title, and her Condé Nast equity stake, cementing a new era of fashion power where money, influence, and optics are inseparable.Underneath all of it, the quiet hum of Amazon’s fashion machine continued to whirr. By 2024, the company already controlled 16.2 percent of every dollar Americans spent on clothing, footwear, and accessories—more than Walmart, Target, Macy’s, and Nordstrom combined. That same year, it generated $34.7 billion in U.S. apparel and footwear revenue that year, with the women’s category alone on pace to top $40 billion. No legacy house has ever had that volume of real-time data on what people actually try on, keep, or return in shame. Amazon can react in weeks rather than seasons, reordering winning pieces, tweaking existing ones, and killing unpopular options before they’re even produced at scale.Wintour did more than simply observe this shift; she engineered a soft landing by bringing Amazon in when it was still somewhat uncool and seen mostly as a discount retailer, lending it credibility when it needed legitimacy, and spending the last two years turning Sánchez from tabloid footnote to Vogue cover star. The Condé Nast sale rumors that began circulating in July 2025, complete with talk of Wintour cashing out her equity and Sánchez taking a creative role, have been denied by every official mouthpiece. But they have also refused to die, because the timeline is simply too tidy.The clearest preview of what billionaire ownership can do to a cultural institution remains Bezos’ other pet project, The Washington Post. Bezos bought it for $250 million in 2013, saved it from bankruptcy, and built it into a profitable digital operation with 2.5 million subscribers. Then, in October 2024, he personally blocked a planned editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris. More than 250,000 subscribers canceled in the following days. By February 2025, the opinion section was restructured around “personal liberties and free markets,” triggering another exodus and the resignation of editorial page editor David Shipley. Former executive editor Marty Baron called it “craven.” The timing, just months after Bezos began warming to the incoming Trump administration, was not lost on anyone. The story didn’t stop there: in the last few days, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance revealed he had texted Bezos suggesting the hiring of a right-leaning Breitbart journalist, Matthew Boyle, to run the Post’s political coverage. This is a clear signal of how staffing decisions at a storied paper now sit within the same power matrix that funds the Met Gala and shapes culture, media, and politics alike. It’s a tangled, strategic web—all of Bezos’ making.It’s curious that, in the same 30-day window that the Trump DOJ expanded its antitrust inquiry into Amazon, specifically how its algorithms favor its own products over third-party sellers, including many fashion brands, the MET, a city-owned museum, handed the keys of its marquee event to the man whose company now wields outsized influence over designers’ fortunes and faces regulatory scrutiny from the administration he helped reinstall. This is not sponsorship; it’s leverage. Wintour once froze Melania Trump out of Vogue because she could afford to.But she cannot freeze out Sánchez or Bezos. Nor does she want to.So on the first Monday in May, the museum doors will open as they always do for the Met Gala. The carpet will still be red (or whatever color the theme demands). The photographs of celebrities posing in their interpretations of “Costume Art” will still break the internet. Andrew Bolton’s exhibition, roughly 200 objects tracing the dressed body across five millennia, displayed in the newly renamed Condé Nast Galleries, will still be brilliant. But the biggest check will come from the couple who already control 16 percent of America’s clothing spend, who own The Washington Post, and who sat three rows behind Trump at the inauguration. Everything else, guest list tweaks, livestream deals, shoppable moments, will flow from that single source of money and power. That is who now has the final word on the most influential night in American fashion."
}
]
}