Search Results

A diplomatic row between Africa, specifically the African Union (AU), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), regarding accountability for mass atrocities exists. Critics accuse the ICC of bias on account of its African caseload, while the ICC counters that it has a mandate to afford justice to victims of heinous crimes—war crimes, crimes against humanity, war of aggression, and genocide—whenever domestic courts cannot do so. This article problematizes the relationship between the AU and the ICC, which was initially cordial until the indictment of former Sudanese autocrat, Omar Al-Bashir. The indictment of six Kenyan suspects, the “Ocampo Six,” among them, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, who subsequently ascended to power, worsened the Africa–ICC relationship. The article contends that, although flawed, the ICC is significant in addressing impunity. However, the ICC stands accused of favoritism, imperialism, erosion of the sovereignty of already weak African states, and escalation of conflicts. Historically, international criminal justice is steeped in controversy. Africa has suffered humiliation by the West, which evokes suspicion toward the ICC, perceived to be a stooge of Western powers. The ICC as a court of last resort, ought to afford justice to victims of mass atrocities whenever national judiciaries fail them. Crucially, however, domestic courts in Africa need capacity and political will to hold to account masterminds and perpetrators of mass atrocities. Thus, the choice between justice and peace or retributive and restorative justice preponderant among ICC critics in Africa is false. There cannot be peace and reconciliation in Africa without justice. Truth telling and retribution are complementary processes in combating impunity and realizing justice, stability, and prosperity.

In the majority of social movements in 18th-century Peru, the social composition was mixed—made up essentially of Indians and mestizos—the latter often playing a relevant part as leaders or part of the leadership of the uprisings. As it happens, Juan Santos Atahualpa and José Gabriel Túpac Amaru, who headed important insurrections during this period, were both mestizos ethnically and culturally. Although there was insurgency on the coast, it can be seen where social protests were concentrated and intensified was above all in the highlands, the Andes, and mostly in the area known as Lower and Upper Perú, that is, the southern Peruvian Andes and what became the republic of Bolivia. However, the uprising of Juan Santos put the Amazonian territory of colonial Peru on the map, which until then had had a marginal presence. It should be pointed out that not all 18th-century social movements were the same, nor did they have the same reach. Some were short-lived, attacked a specific authority, were easy to control, covered a limited space, and lacked defined leadership; in other words, they were social revolts. Rebellions were movements of greater magnitude, involving several towns or even provinces; mixed leadership, with political statements, placards, a duration of several days or weeks; and well-orchestrated repression. But if they had something in common, it was that neither the revolts nor the rebellions were “spontaneous.” In both cases, the rebels already had resentment against a specific authority or a certain abusive situation that led them to conduct themselves in a violent way in the context of social unrest. This was not about unexpected reactions but about predictable ones, on the part of the insurgents, as well as on the part of the colonial authorities. Opposing focal points had been created, which, eventually, could spread out. The Great Rebellion of Túpac Amaru II was an unprecedented mass movement that broke out in Cuzco in November 1780 and was preceded by a series of lesser revolts both immediate, that is, joint revolts, and those that arose previously over a longer period. This cumulative factor might explain the intensity and resonance that the insurrection achieved from 1780 to 1781. The “general uprising”—as it was called by colonial authorities—was, therefore, the culmination of a series of social movements of lesser reach that showed that the colonial populace was not passive when its interests and expectations were threatened. Quite the contrary; it was able to react, to respond. The Great Rebellion geographically encompassed two-thirds of the Viceroyalty of Peru, including Upper Peru, and lasted almost a year, preventing during that time the regular operation of the production centers of the Andean south and making revenue received by the Royal Treasury sporadic. Clearly, the criteria for a rebellion were emerging. However, it is interesting to note that the 18th-century uprisings, in the case of Peru, came together or coincided in three moments, three rebel conjunctures, where they formed nodes of social unrest. It can be noted that the first conjuncture was determined by the government of Viceroy Castelfuerte and the general visit that resulted. The second conjuncture is defined by the legalization of the forced distribution of goods by the corregidor—reparto or repartimiento—and the opposing relations that this measure provoked in the communities and other local authorities. The third conjuncture is forged in the context of the Bourbon fiscal reforms that brought Visitador Areche to Peru and unleashed social protests in different areas of the viceroyalty which culminated in the outbreak of the Great Rebellion.

As part of a push to homogenize culture, the modern Argentine nation-state (1880–1930) did away with race as an explicit criterion of social classification, laying the foundations for the myth of White Argentina. Cultural productions and the mainstream media have fed that myth for a century. In recent decades (since the mid-1980s and the 1990s), however, community media outlets have drawn attention to racist practices against specific social groups, particularly Indigenous peoples, regional immigrants, and Black people. While working to forge ties with ancestors from the 19th century or even earlier, these alternative media outlets tend to overlook the 20th century entirely, as if to confirm how successfully Argentina rendered non-White people invisible during the nation’s modern history. Besides targeting minority groups, racism in modern Argentina was also directed at a large swath of the working class that embodies what shall be referred to here as negritud popular (low-class Blackness). What is the relationship between discrimination against specific groups, their responses to this discrimination, and a broader racism directed against working-class and popular sectors? Working through denial and drawing on appearance, Argentinian racism operates ambiguously and intersects with other forms of discrimination. By removing the racial dimension from racism, race could no longer be politicized, but “White” Argentines could still refuse to acknowledge others’ existence, shaping a racism through denial that is epitomized in the commonly heard “in Argentina there are no Blacks/Indians left.” Appearance proves key in this process: Although it alludes to the color of one’s skin and phenotype, it also encompasses a number of visible traits, such as clothing and accessories, gestures, and face and hair care, that, when taken together, convey a person’s social class and value. From this perspective, racism in Argentina targets two types of subjects (ethnic, national, and diasporic subjects, on the one hand, and negritud popular on the other), although certain individuals may fall into both categories. The spaces for racism in Argentina—and for combating racism—are difficult to locate with any precision.

Though World War II is part of the Caribbean’s popular imaginary and cultural production, World War II scholars have relegated the region to a footnote. It should not be so. From January 1942 to July 1943, 20 percent of all the allied shipping was sunk as a result of the one-sided naval battles that occurred there. German submarine warfare was sinking one oil tanker or merchant ship per day in Caribbean waters in the worst months of 1942. Nazi Germany’s aggressiveness in the Caribbean was strategic. In 1942 Aruba, Curaçao, and the Venezuelan oil fields and refineries provided roughly 95 percent of the oil required to sustain the East Coast of the United States—59 million gallons a day. The supply of bauxite from British Guiana and Surinam was crucial for the war effort. Moreover, control of the Caribbean meant control of the Panama Canal, which since 1914 had allowed the US Navy to control the eastern Pacific and the western Atlantic. The US Merchant Marine suffered heavy losses of ships and men, while the Allies struggled to contain the damage done to the supply of oil from Venezuela and airplane fuel from Curaçao to the United States. The United States invested billions in military installments on the British and American islands and transformed Puerto Rico into “the Gibraltar of the Caribbean.” Despite these investments Puerto Rico experienced food shortages because of German U-boat warfare in 1942, while Martinique suffered near famine in the aftermath of a British and American blockade induced by the Vichy government’s control of the Caribbean island.

Paul Chikahisa, MSW (1929–1996) was a pioneer in community advocacy and social service development for families and children. His life’s work also included social work education and practice as well as a commitment to the development of a prototype curriculum for social workers that reflected diversity, inclusion, and belonging.

Conflict is a common experience in families. Although conflicts can be intense, most conflicts in families are about mundane issues such as housework, social life, schoolwork, or hygiene. Families’ negotiations over even such mundane topics, however, have important implications. Through conflicts with other family members, children typically first learn about managing difficulties with others, and the skills they learn in such conflicts are important to their social lives beyond their families. Yet poorly managed conflicts that become more intense or personal can undermine the well-being of families and family members. Family conflicts are extremely complex, and understanding them requires analysis at multiple levels, including examining the individual family members, dyads and larger groups within the family, and the sociocultural context in which families are embedded. At the individual level, family members’ conflict behaviors (e.g., exhibiting positive affect vs. negative affect), conflict skills (e.g., whether they are able to resolve problems), and cognitions (e.g., whether they make generous attributions about other family members' intent during disputes) all are important for understanding the impact of family conflicts. Examining conflict from the dyadic and polyadic levels recognizes that there are important features of conflict that are only apparent with a broader perspective. Dyadic and polyadic constructs include patterns of behavior, conflict outcomes that apply to all family members involved, and beliefs shared by family members. There are also particular types of relationships within families that have salient conflicts which have drawn considerable scholarly attention, such as parent–child or parent–adolescent conflicts, conflicts between siblings, marital conflicts, and conflicts between co-parents. In addition, families experience various transitions, and the life course of families influences conflict. Some key periods for conflict are the early years of marriage, the period of launching children and empty nest, and a family member navigating the end of life. Finally, family conflicts occur in a larger sociocultural context in which societal events and conditions affect family conflict. Such contextual factors include broad social structures (e.g., societal-level power dynamics between men and women), financial conditions, different co-cultural groups within a country, cross-cultural differences, and major events such as the COVID-19 pandemic that have direct effects on families and also elicit dramatic social responses that affect families. Despite the complexities, it is important to understand family conflict because of its implications for the health and well-being of families and family members.