{ "article": { "title" : "From Matriarchy to Advocacy: Sudan’s struggles, global solidarity, and the fight for self-determination", "author" : "maya finoh, Tarteel Al Imam", "category" : "interviews", "url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/tarteel-al-imam-sudan-global-solidarity-self-determination", "date" : "2024-11-01 12:59:00 -0400", "img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/tarteel-thumb.jpg", "excerpt" : "maya finoh: It’s our first time meeting, so I’d absolutely love to learn more about you and who you are! Can you tell me about some experiences or moments in your life that have really shaped you? And who are your people?", "content" : "maya finoh: It’s our first time meeting, so I’d absolutely love to learn more about you and who you are! Can you tell me about some experiences or moments in your life that have really shaped you? And who are your people?TARTEEL AL IMAM: My name is Tarteel Al Imam. I was born and raised in Omdurman, Sudan, where I spent my childhood. I grew up surrounded by the most amazing women—my aunts, my mom, and my grandmothers. It was a very matriarchal household, and I saw these incredible women doing everything with so much passion and love.I moved to the United States when I was eight, and wow, it felt like moving to another planet! Everything was so different—the language, the people, and the culture. I went from being in a very communal society, where everyone knows everyone, to a much more individualistic one. In Sudan, your neighbors are like your second family. Everyone’s in and out of each other’s houses. So, that sense of community was something I really missed when I first moved here.Being Sudanese is a huge part of who I am, and I’ve always been driven to give back to my community. I started tutoring Sudanese students, mentoring them, and it made me realize that I want to use whatever skills and resources I’ve gained to uplift the Sudanese community. That’s how I got into advocacy for Sudan. In 2019, after the revolution, I co-founded the Sudanese Diaspora Network. Our goal is to bridge the gap between the diaspora and the youth in Sudan. We’ve worked on projects like renovating playgrounds at Mygoma, an orphanage in Sudan, because even though we’ve physically left Sudan, it will always be a part of us. Everything I do, I try to bring it back to Sudan. I owe so much to my grandmothers. Every single thing I do can be traced back to the principles and values they instilled in me—living with love, joy, and always giving back to the community. That’s what drives me every day.maya: So much of what you said resonated with me. My family is West African, from Sierra Leone, and the role of grandmothers is something I connect with deeply. My own grandmother came to live with us in the ‘90s during the Civil War in our country, so I completely understand the love and influence that grandmothers hold.As you know, atrocities in Africa are often portrayed as humanitarian crises or civil wars, even when there’s foreign interference seeking control of natural resources. So, I’m wondering if you could explain why the ongoing violence in Sudan today is better understood as a proxy war or even a counter-revolutionary war against the Sudanese people.TARTEEL: In Sudan’s case, there are multiple regional and international actors with very vested interests in the conflict, backing different factions. For example, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have strategic interests, particularly regarding the Nile River and political stability in the region. Egypt is closely aligned with Sudan’s military faction, the SAF, because they fear that instability might jeopardize their Nile water supply and influence.On the other hand, the UAE and Russia, particularly through the Wagner Group, are supporting the RSF due to their heavy investment in Sudan’s gold resources and its strategic positioning on the Red Sea. The UAE views the RSF, led by Hemeti, as a strategic partner for controlling Sudan’s lucrative gold mines. Sudan is one of the world’s largest producers of gold, and the RSF controls vast mines in Darfur and other regions. The UAE is illegally extracting this gold, using the RSF as the means to do so. The RSF, in turn, relies on the UAE’s backing to sustain its operations, build wealth, and maintain its influence.The gold is being smuggled to Dubai, a global hub for gold trading, which is further fueling the conflict. This gold comes at the cost of people’s lives.This smuggling and exploitation are directly prolonging the conflict, with the UAE playing a critical yet under- acknowledged role, costing millions of lives.In 2019, the Sudanese people successfully ousted longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir through a popular revolution, driven by civilian- led protests calling for Huria, Salaam, wa Adalah—freedom, peace, and justice—and an end to military rule. In Darfur, the RSF has continued the genocidal tactics used during the earlier conflict, targeting different communities, burning villages, and committing horrific acts of violence.maya: I appreciate how you pointed out that actors like the UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Russia are backing these militias and essentially banking on destabilization to maintain control over Sudan’s rich natural resources, which the Sudanese people themselves should have control over. They should be able to determine how to use these resources for their own benefit.I also want to thank you for highlighting that ethnic cleansing is being used as a deliberate war tactic. I feel like that genocidal aspect is often missing from the analysis when non-Africans or non-Sudanese people discuss what’s happening in Sudan.On that note, I’d love to know what sparked the creation of the #KeepEyesOnSudan hashtag.TARTEEL: Yes, so the hashtag #KeepEyesOnSudan originally emerged during the 2019 Sudanese uprising as a response to the violent crackdown by military forces on peaceful, pro-democracy protesters. It was driven by the urgent need to raise global awareness of the atrocities happening in Sudan, especially because the country was often under an information blackout. This blackout was intentional, designed to isolate the Sudanese people and keep the rest of the world in the dark about what was happening.With the internet shut down, communication was cut off, making it incredibly difficult for the international community to grasp the scale of the violence. During this time, very few reports of the massacres got out, and this silence was dangerous—it cost lives, with those on the ground paying the price. To counter this, Sudanese activists turned to social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook to share whatever information they could get from people on the ground, alerting the world to the atrocities being committed.The #KeepEyesOnSudan hashtag was created to raise international awareness and ensure that the ongoing revolution and the Sudanese people’s demands for a civilian-led government didn’t go unnoticed or get forgotten by the global community. It was about accountability, about not letting the martyrs who sacrificed their lives for Sudan’s liberation be forgotten.maya: You’ve already touched upon the revolutionary uprising and the unwavering desire for democratic, civilian rule in Sudan— in your opinion, what does Sudanese self-determination require?TARTEEL: I think that Sudanese self-determination is a complex and long-term goal that requires multiple layers of change. First and foremost, it requires a government that is democratically elected, accountable to the people, and free from military control. Since the ousting of Omar Al-Bashir in 2019, the power struggle between the military and the RSF has been a major obstacle to democracy. One of the most crucial steps toward self-determination is establishing a civilian government. This also requires transparent elections. Sudanese people need the opportunity to participate in free, fair, and transparent elections, where they can choose their representatives without interference from the military or foreign powers.For Sudan to truly achieve self-determination, I strongly believe that marginalized groups—women, ethnic minorities, and youth—must have an active role in political decision-making. We saw in the 2019 revolution that it was women-led, and even now, many grassroots organizations and humanitarian relief efforts are youth-led and women-led.Another key factor is freedom of speech and press. This is not a guaranteed right in Sudan, and Sudanese people must be allowed to express their opinions, criticize the government, and participate in political life without fear of repression or censorship. Finally, self-determination requires recognizing and respecting all of Sudan’s cultural and ethnic identities. Policies must promote inclusion, equality, and respect for diversity, rather than favoring certain groups over others, which has historically been the case.maya: What is the role of those of us committed to the liberation of the African continent in the ongoing struggle for people’s rule in Sudan? Specifically, what actions can those of us living in the heart of the U.S. empire—what many call the belly of the beast—take in solidarity with Sudanese organizers?TARTEEL: I truly love this question because I believe that those dedicated to the liberation of the African continent have a crucial role in standing with Sudanese organizers and amplifying their demands for self-determination, civilian governance, and human rights. The role of African liberation movements, both on the continent and in the diaspora, is to forge solidarity, apply pressure on international actors, and uplift grassroots efforts, as true change arises from the ground up.One key aspect is amplifying Sudanese voices. African liberation activists can provide platforms for Sudanese organizers to share their stories, strategize, and create lists of demands.International pressure on governments and institutions is another important avenue. African liberation movements can work to expose and challenge foreign interference, spotlighting exploitative relationships. For instance, pinpointing actors like the UAE, Russia, and Egypt allows us to counter the narrative that frames the situation as merely a humanitarian crisis.People in the U.S., specifically, have a unique and crucial role to play in supporting Sudan and Sudanese organizers, given America’s significant influence on global politics, economics, and military affairs. This means pushing for diplomatic pressures on the UAE to cease their financial and military support for the ongoing violence in Sudan.It’s important to understand that Sudan is not forgotten; people simply ignore it. While there are Sudanese voices on the ground, their stories often remain unheard outside their communities.Additionally, advocating for refugee rights is crucial. This means pushing for policies that grant asylum and protection for Sudanese refugees. With more than 10 million people displaced, we must ensure they are treated with dignity and provided the resources to thrive in their new environments, whether that’s in the U.S. or in neighboring countries like Egypt.maya: Is there anything else you’d like to share?TARTEEL: This is what humanity is all about: breaking down the barriers that keep us separate. When we shift away from the mentality of “What can I do as an individual?” we start to see that we are much stronger together. It’s about viewing this as an opportunity for collective action rather than the burden of individual action. The more we embrace this idea, the more we can truly make a difference.maya: Ultimately, we need to be so rooted in collective action that the call for a free Sudan is also clearly a call for a free Palestine, a free Congo, a free West Papua, a free Haiti— a free Global South.‘In 2019, the Sudanese people successfully ousted longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir through a popular revolution, driven by civilian-led protests calling for Huria, Salaam, wa Adalah—freedom, peace, and justice— and an end to military rule. In Darfur, the RSF has continued the genocidal tactics used during the earlier conflict, targeting different communities, burning villages, and committing horrific acts of violence.’—Tarteel" } , "relatedposts": [ { "title" : "Mercy Over Speed: Revolutionizing Our Political Imagination", "author" : "Sue Ariza", "category" : "essays", "url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/mercy-over-speed", "date" : "2025-12-11 13:40:00 -0500", "img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Mercy_Speed.jpg", "excerpt" : "2025 was a masterclass in haste.", "content" : "2025 was a masterclass in haste.Policies rushed to enact a merciless agenda that benefit only the few—President Donald Trump scrapped Biden’s AI executive order within hours of taking office, wiping out safety and transparency requirements as we enter a new digital age. Immigration officials were ordered to quadruple immigration arrests overnight. Food assistance was frozen while billions in relief funds sat unused; hunger used as a pawn in the longest government shutdown in American history. Entire communities pushed not just to autopilot, but to survival—by algorithms that cannot see them, by bureaucracies that cannot pause long enough to understand them, by political actors who confuse immediacy with leadership.Of course, the real crisis isn’t speed on its own. It’s what speed erases: attention, nuance, reflection, and the fundamental truth that human beings are not statistics or administrative burdens. Perhaps nowhere was this clearer than in the State Department’s human rights reports earlier this year. In the name of “streamlining,” references to prison abuse, LGBTQIA+ persecution, and attacks on human rights defenders were quietly removed. The language was technocratic—reduce redundancy, tidy up the narrative—but the effect was ideological: whole communities and categories of suffering erased from national memory.Because the truth is, what speed strategically, ruthlessly, obliterates is the one crucial political practice we need most: mercy.Our world has taught us to think of mercy in opposition to speed, too soft for our lived realities, though it’s anything but that: Mercy is the commitment to respond to harm, conflict, or complexity with clarity rather than panic—with discernment instead of reflex. Mercy is the refusal to collapse a person, an idea, or a crisis into something smaller than it is. Mercy is political imagination: the capacity to see beyond what urgency allows and stay with one another long enough to resist the reflexes that turn disagreement into instant judgment—so we can listen before we attack or defend.But what does mercy actually demand of us? For us to reclaim it politically, we first must understand what it means and how it offers a counter-rhythm to our frantic culture of speed and instant gratification.The word itself tells a story. Mercy comes from the Latin merces—wages, payment, the price of goods. Ancient Romans understood it as a transaction. But early Christians shifted the word toward the sacred: the spiritual reward for showing kindness where cruelty was expected. They moved a word about the marketplace into a vocabulary of grace.Judaism’s rachamim, Islam’s rahma, Buddhism’s karuṇā, and Hinduism’s dayā all insist on the same truth: mercy is a way of recognizing the sacredness in others.That transformation mirrors what mercy asks of us now: to move beyond the logic of exchange, beyond what is earned or owed. It asks us to look at someone who has caused pain, and instead of asking What do they deserve? ask, What does healing require here? It is seeing beyond someone’s worst moment and choosing curiosity over condemnation.But mercy is more than individual forgiveness. It is a way of moving through the world that assumes people are larger than their failures; that redemption remains possible; that, importantly, time is not a scarce resource, but something we can afford to give. Mercy requires attention—what French philosopher Simone Weil called “the rarest and purest form of generosity.” It is why American novelist James Baldwin described love as an active emotion: the daily labor of truly seeing another person, especially when the systems around us tell us to look away.The problem, however, is that attention is precisely what our culture has made almost impossible to give. We are overstimulated, overextended, algorithmically hijacked, not only bearing witness to incredible amounts of suffering, but scrolling past it. We don’t refuse mercy because we’re cruel. We refuse it because we’ve built a world that makes stopping feel unimaginable—impractical.This is why mercy is not opposed to speed; it is opposed to false urgency. There are moments when mercy requires swift, decisive intervention. The problem is not action—it’s reaction: the unexamined acceleration that mistakes immediacy for moral clarity and treats nuance as an inconvenience.Consider how the culture of speed is destabilizing basic public systems. Take the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that feeds more than 42 million Americans. This year, households faced unprecedented threats to their benefits—not because their needs had changed, not because the money didn’t exist, but because the administration chose to let billions in contingency funds sit untouched. The crisis wasn’t a failure of capacity. It was a political choice dressed up as inevitability.Or look at the rush to implement AI—a race happening not because anyone has thought deeply about what these systems are for, but because companies fear being the last to adopt them. Across industries, AI is being plugged into hiring platforms, healthcare systems, education tools, corporate workflows, and crisis-response mechanisms, often with little understanding of the consequences. “Innovation” has become a justification to move faster than ethics, oversight, or even common sense can keep up. In that scramble to avoid falling behind, speed becomes a substitute for understanding what people actually need and for the mercy that governance requires.A merciful politics would insist that deliberation is not inefficiency but protection, and that slowing down is an ethical requirement. Because the stakes of leadership and governance without it are real: if AI systems are going to help determine who gets hired, who gets healthcare, who receives support, which students get flagged for discipline, then refusing to slow down is not neutrality—it is a political choice with human costs.Our addiction to speed also shapes how we respond to political disagreement. Our culture no longer rewards thinking or meaningful conversation. Instead, it rewards reacting. Watch how career Democrats responded to New York Assembly member Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral campaign in November. Rather than engaging with his proposals on housing, healthcare, or municipal governance, establishment voices moved immediately to demonization. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer withheld his endorsement entirely. His ideas required discussion, which takes time and attention. His vision challenged party orthodoxy, which requires deliberation to refute or incorporate. Instead of dialogue, we see instant censure, moral panic, and swift punishment.The speed of the response is the point. It signals that dissent is tolerable only when it can be quickly absorbed or quickly dismissed. Ideas that require conversation are treated as threats simply because they resist rapid processing. The issue isn’t whether Mamdani’s proposals are correct (and of course, it remains to be seen how they will actually be implemented); it’s that the reflex to demonize rather than debate reveals a political culture that has forgotten how to think collectively.We see this punitive speed logic everywhere. Students disciplined for language before conversations can happen. Social movements judged by headlines rather than the work. Communities criminalized in real time by social media cycles that flatten context into consumable outrage. We’ve built a society quicker to punish than to understand, quicker to condemn than to contextualize.But mercy could help us move differently. Mercy would refuse to relegate a person or an idea to a caricature simply because the truth requires time. Mercy asks us to hold uncertainty long enough to respond with discernment rather than reflex. It asks us to think—together.Legal scholar Matthias Mahlmann writes that dignity is “subversive,” an insistence that every human life carries irreducible worth. But dignity has a temporal requirement: you cannot witness another person’s humanity at speed. You cannot attend to the complexity of a life if you’re only interested in the fastest possible outcome.This is why systems built around optimization always feel so violent. Algorithmic welfare reviews, automated policing, real-time public shaming—all of them demand that human beings be compressed into categories that can be processed quickly. The violence isn’t just in the outcome; it’s in the refusal of attention itself.Mercy and dignity are inseparable. Dignity names the inherent worth that every person carries; mercy is the discipline that protects that worth in practice. Dignity says there is something unbreakable in each of us. Mercy is how we honor that unbreakable thing, especially when harm or conflict tempts us to forget it. What would shift if our reflex wasn’t How fast can we react?, but How deeply can we understand? What becomes possible when we refuse to hurry past another person’s humanity?Mercy is not sentiment. It is resistance. It is the refusal of dignity fatigue. It is the discipline of witnessing: in political policy, in the conversations we have, in how we treat each other’s failures and hopes. 2025 taught us what haste can destroy. The question now is whether we’re willing to build something slower—and more human—in its place." } , { "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." } ] }