What Is There To Celebrate On The 250th Anniversary Of The United States of America?
02-07-2026 ~ On July 4, 2026, the United States of America turns 250 years old. Should the Left celebrate the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States with the signing of the Declaration of Independence? After all, this is a nation with a very dark and ugly past — with racism, genocide, and imperialism deeply embedded in its psyche.
Surely Native Americans have no reason to celebrate. The history of the United States government’s treatment of Native Americans is one of cruelty, oppression, and extermination. Leaving aside the 56 million indigenous people that were killed by European settlers across the Americas by 1600, since its independence in 1776, the U.S. government has launched more than 1500 attacks against various indigenous people, slaughtering them, and taking their lands. Native Americans in the U.S. continue to face oppression, poverty, and discrimination, and rank near the bottom of all other groups in terms of health, education, and employment.
What about blacks? Do they have a reason to celebrate a nation that denied them their humanity for much of those 250 years, while they continue to experience racial discrimination to this day? Racism against blacks remains very much widespread in the Good Ol’ USA.
Should American women have a reason to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday? They have been treated as second-class citizens until fairly recently, and while many countries around the world have or had female leaders, it is a widely shared belief that the U.S. is still not ready for a woman president.
If anything, a major milestone like the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence should be an opportunity to confront the nation’s dark and ugly past and reflect on what has gone wrong with U.S. democracy and what we can do about it. After all, isn’t it a tragic irony that the celebration of America’s 250th birthday, which is supposed to honor the principles of liberty and equality upon which the nation was allegedly founded, will take place with an administration in power whose own beliefs and actions embody the very tyrannical rule that the Declaration of Independence sought to overthrow?
What manner of national progress is this?
But history is not a linear progression. Nor is it guided by the realization of freedom and rationality, as Hegel thought. Human history moves in a spiral, and irrationality makes up a great part of human life and history. Moreover, not only does the value of ideals vary greatly (Nazism and imperialism were as potent ideals as those of democracy and self-determination), but there is usually a disconnect between ideals and political reality. Some of the lofty principles in the Declaration of Independence, such as “all men are created equal,” collided with the facts on the ground and, in fact, had a very narrow interpretation when they were written, as they applied only to white, propertied men.
Indeed, in 2026, we have a president who likes to govern like a king, or a dictator. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has given Donald J. Trump king-like powers. Thus, it is hardly surprising that Trump 2.0 has demolished democracy by initiating a new age of authoritarian rule with civil and human rights rollbacks, weaponizing the federal government against the president’s political rivals, and unleashing a paramilitary squad of fascist thugs into communities across the nation. It is also hardly surprising that Trump has become the most corrupt president in U.S. history. He is exploiting shamelessly the highest office in the land to enrich himself and his family.
Trump’s enablers extend beyond today’s Supreme Court, which has moved so far rightward that it qualifies as the most reactionary in the nation’s modern history. It includes the plutocrats, media conglomerates, evangelical Christians, and pro-Israel political networks. Retail corporations, major law firms, and academic institutions capitulated with such ease to Trump’s bullying tactics that they made a mockery of liberal ideals. Read more
How Russia And China Learned To Love Their Border
John P. Ruehl – Independent Media Institute
06-30-2026 ~ Once one of the world’s most militarized frontiers, the Russia-China border along the Amur River Basin shows how a long-running territorial dispute can evolve from confrontation to integration.
Since the early 1990s, the Russian city of Blagoveshchensk, located on the Amur River, has steadily reemerged as one of Russia’s most important “border trade hubs.” Sitting directly across from the Chinese city of Heihe, migration for work, commerce, and education has become a routine occurrence between these two cities. Now, the world’s first cross-border cable car system, which is expected to be completed by the end of 2026, will further connect Blagoveshchensk and Heihe.
The vast majority of the shared Russia-China border runs along the Amur River and its main tributaries, including the Argun and Ussuri. Several other cross-border infrastructure projects are underway, including a road-railway bridge at the Dzhalinda mixed checkpoint, also scheduled to open this year. While sanctions and the war in Ukraine have cut into much of Russia’s civilian economy, its Far East has benefited from the expanding trade and infrastructure links being constructed with China.
Mutual trade, much of it routed through these border crossings, increased by two-thirds from 2022 to 2024, reaching $240 billion. Meanwhile, the trade activity between Russia and China grew by 23 percent between January and May 2026. In March, the Chinese ambassador to Russia called for additional border crossings to cut logistics costs.
This level of economic integration is a far cry from the militarized frontier of the 1960s, when hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Soviet troops engaged in deadly clashes in 1969 during the Zhenbao Island incident. The affair pushed both Moscow and Beijing to seek greater ties with Washington in the aftermath. Some American strategists continue to see the border as a potential fault line, with a 2021 monograph from the US School of Advanced Military Studies calling it “ripe with historical tensions and potentially susceptible to an information campaign by the United States.”
Today, however, neither Russia nor China has any reason for renewing hostility. Both view Washington as a greater strategic concern and have benefited from the stability that a settled border has provided.
It is crucial to remember, however, that the present border arrangement is less than 20 years old, having been finalized only after nearly four centuries of intermittent contact, competing claims, and flashes of violence. Exploring that history is essential to understanding how China and Russia have ensured current stability along their border and why it remains a distinctive and important part of their burgeoning relationship.
Expanding Empires Meet
The Tsardom of Russia and the Qing Empire first encountered each other as they expanded into the Amur River Basin in the 1640s, with limited local geographic knowledge and differing concepts of imperial governance. Russian officials approached the region through European notions of fixed boundaries and territorial control. Qing rulers relied more on a tributary system that provided a strategic buffer. Moreover, Qing maps and administrative claims also treated the region as their domain, historian James A. Millward notes.
Clashes in the 1650s and an inability to communicate directly complicated efforts to define a frontier between Russia and China. Finally, in 1689, the Qing employed two Jesuit advisers, whose command of Latin helped bridge negotiations with the Russians’ Polish interpreter, resulting in the Treaty of Nerchinsk.
Russia agreed to withdraw from much of the Amur region, a concession made easier by its retention of territory west of the Argun River, expansion opportunities in Siberia, and trading rights with the Qing. In return, the Qing secured the frontier and consolidated control over Mongolia. As historian James Carter notes in the China Project, a combination of “shared common interest, willingness to compromise, trusted intermediaries, the threat of force, and even some desperation” helped produce the settlement.
The experience taught the Qing Empire to place greater emphasis on surveying and mapping. Under the Kangxi Emperor, Jesuit missionaries helped compile the Kangxi Atlas between 1708 and 1721, combining European surveying methods with Chinese cartography to produce a more accurate map of the empire and reinforce imperial claims. China and the newly proclaimed Russian Empire signed the Treaty of Kyakhta in 1727 to clarify the frontier through Mongolia and establish a regulated trading hub at Kyakhta.
This frontier held steady for over a century, demonstrating the durability of the agreements and the established balance of power between Russia and China. However, by the mid-19th century, an array of foreign powers, alongside internal unrest that erupted into the Taiping Rebellion, massively weakened the Qing Empire and created an opening for Russia to return to the Amur Basin.
Already under pressure from maritime threats from European powers and Japan, China faced a different challenge from Russia’s overland expansion. Many of China’s “unequal treaties,” which provided foreigners with “privileged status” and forced the Chinese to make concessions, were based on access to Chinese ports and commercial markets. This was also the case with the treaties Beijing had with Russia, which resulted in the expansion of territory for Moscow. The Russia-China Treaty of Aigun in 1858 transferred the northern bank of the Amur, and the 1860 Treaty of Peking ceded all territory between the Ussuri River and the Pacific Ocean to Russia, including what would later become Vladivostok. Read more
Protests Over Kushner-Backed Development Threaten To Topple Albanian Government
Ariela Zeneli – Photo: Transform!europe
06-29-2026 ~ What began as an effort to protect a coastal ecosystem has become a broad movement against corruption and neoliberalism.
Albania, a country in the southwestern region of the Balkan peninsula, is witnessing one of the biggest waves of anti-government protests since the final end of socialism in 1992. The protests began in late May in opposition to the construction of a multibillion-dollar luxury resort backed by Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, in the protected delta area of Vjosa-Narta, but they have now become a common sight in the capital city of Tirana. The protesters, who have faced riot police and water cannons, are demanding the resignation of socialist Prime Minister Edi Rama as activists aim to put an end to politics as usual in a country where corruption and organized crime are prominent features. In the meanwhile, Rama continues to support the luxury resort project linked to Jared Kushner and alleges that the enemies of Albania and Israel are behind the unrest.
In the interview that follows, Albanian activist Ariela Zeneli discusses the aims and goals of the ongoing protests in Albania and highlights possible outcomes. She is a social activist and project coordinator actively involved in student and social movements advocating for youth rights, education, social justice, and democratic participation.
C. J. Polychroniou: Ariela, can you put into political context Albania’s protests over the Kushner-backed resort in the protected delta area of Vjosa-Narta? Why would a luxury resort plan spark massive protests?
Ariela Zeneli: As you mention, the protests began in response to a project planned for the Vjosa–Narta area. The main concern is that what the government presents as a major investment and a development opportunity for Albania would be built in a protected ecosystem with rich biodiversity and significant environmental value.
The protest was initially organized by local residents and environmental activists, including the Movement TOGETHER. The area is known for its untouched natural beauty and its lagoon, which serves as a habitat for migratory birds such as flamingos. Because of its ecological importance, it has protected status. Despite this, the government has continued to push forward with its development plans.
Another issue that fueled the protests was the situation of local residents and their property rights. These are families who have lived in the area for generations and have long-standing claims to their land. However, many residents argue that they have been stripped of those rights through irregular and often fake processes. Tensions escalated on the very first day of the protest, when one demonstrator was dragged away by private security guards while the police stood idly by. The incident sparked outrage and drew even more people to the cause.
Under the slogan “Albania Is Not for Sale,” protesters have called for the cancellation of the Zvërnec project, the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama, and an end to policies that prioritize oligarchs and politically connected investors over the public interest.
What has also angered many people is the lack of transparency surrounding the project. On the one hand, the prime minister has promoted it as a €4 billion investment that will transform the region. On the other hand, he has admitted that there is still no final project and that the company is only in the environmental assessment phase. These statements do not add up. Almost every day, a different explanation is offered, which gives the impression that the government is reacting to public pressure rather than presenting a clear plan. Rama has even called for dialogue and negotiations, but the dominant message from the protests remains: “Resign.”
To me, these protests are much more than a single tourism project. They reflect growing frustration with an economic model that generates profit through the dispossession of local communities while presenting itself as development. The question is not only what is being built, but who benefits from it. Supporters of the project speak about investment and growth, but many local residents see a future in which they lose control over their land and are left with little more than low-paid, seasonal jobs in hotels and resorts. That is why this struggle has resonated so strongly: it is not only about protecting a landscape, but also about defending the right of communities to shape their own future.
Movement TOGETHER, of which you are a member, opposed the luxury resort project from the beginning. Is this a movement of activists or an actual political party, and what does it stand for?
Lëvizja BASHKË (Movement TOGETHER) was founded on December 18, 2022, at the initiative of activists and members of Organizata Politike, a leftist grassroots organization that has been operating in Albania since 2011.
Organizata Politike used the Red Robin (Erithacus Rubecula) as a symbol of freedom and resistance. The robin represents the movement’s organizational and political worldview in what they see as a “frosty Albania,” quickly depopulating due to emigration, especially among the young. To be red robins, the party says, “is to stay here in Albania, to resist, to live vigorously and sing, by working day after day, every day for a fairer and more democratic society.”
Initially, we functioned as a grassroots movement and helped several causes. For example, we helped miners, oil, and construction workers with protests and forming unions. We supported the student cause, which began as an initiative of students and professors in public universities to oppose neoliberal and clientelist reforms in higher education. We helped in various other social causes, ranging from the draft law for the recognition of a guaranteed minimum wage to opposition against the concreting of Tirana and the destruction of the Vjosa River, and from support for public transport to gender equality, among others. Read more
How Russia Is Upending The West’s Attempt To Control Technology With Intellectual Property
John P. Ruehl – Independent Media Institute
06-27-2026 ~ Russia’s challenge to prevailing IP and copyright norms is central to its pursuit of technological sovereignty. Global fragmentation and Western divisions have given Moscow space to test the system’s limits without fully abandoning it.
Taking an invention and claiming it as yours is called intellectual property, based on practices followed by US and European businesses. But what happens when your neighbor argues that inventions can’t be owned, and that intellectual property is no longer applicable based on the rules and regulations you have established?
In March 2026, Russian officials announced plans to develop a state-managed system for the “temporary administration” of the intellectual property of foreign companies from “unfriendly countries” that left Russia after the 2022 Ukraine invasion. The move drew immediate concerns in policy and legal circles and is one of Moscow’s latest challenges to the Western-led system of patents, copyrights, and trademarks that has developed over centuries.
What Led to the Development of Intellectual Property
Before the modern IP system, creators could be protected through reputation, guild membership, secrecy, patronage, or state-granted monopolies. Early precursors to today’s framework took place in Venice, including printing monopolies in 1469, and reflected efforts to control the value of reproduced knowledge. Another milestone was the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474, which granted inventors time-limited exclusive rights over new creations. The European Enlightenment later helped spread the notion across the region that inventions and ideas could be legally ownable property, laying the foundations for modern IP law to develop in different states.
While powerful Western firms and states have the greatest stake in maintaining the existing system, given the advantages it ensures for key industries, that wasn’t always the case. From the late 18th century to the early 20th century, the US often relied on weak foreign IP enforcement, copying European industrial and scientific innovations, which “propelled the United States forward and quickly transformed it into one of the world’s leading industrial powers,” according to author Christopher Klein. British writer and journalist Charles Dickens, among others, meanwhile, complained about the widespread reprinting of books without royalties.
Jane K. and Peder Sather Professor of History at UC Berkeley, Carla A. Hesse, noted in an essay that US attitudes toward IP shifted from an “objectivist-utilitarian” emphasis on shared knowledge to a “universalist-natural-rights” view that prioritized exclusive rights over the country’s growing number of inventions. This was also seen in Germany, where firms became known for reverse-engineering machine tools and improving foreign chemical products. The country later became a strong advocate of patent protection.
When these economies caught up technologically, incentives converged to help drive the creation of international IP rules. The 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works were milestones in establishing the modern global IP system.
The Russian challenge to the notion of IP goes back more than a century, with the Russian Empire only partially engaging with emerging global IP regimes before its 1917 Revolution. While adopting patent and trademark laws on paper, it applied them unevenly and with minimal enforcement, while focusing on state control over strategic industries and foreign technology transfers. Later, the Soviet Union joined some international agreements, including the Universal Copyright Convention (1952) and Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970), while avoiding others such as the Berne Convention.
Hesse and economist Ha-Joon Chang have noted that since the 1970s, the US and Western Europe have increasingly used trade sanctions and agreements to pressure developing nations to adopt their preferred IP standards. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have helped export Western-style IP rules, transforming intellectual property into a tool of economic governance that helped leverage technological progress.
Following the Soviet collapse, Russia moved its IP regime closer to Western standards in the 2000s and early 2010s, driven by WTO accession requirements and pressure and incentives from Western governments and corporations. Access to investment, markets, technology, and the global economy convinced Moscow that cooperation would be more constructive for national development.
China, of course, has been a principal target of claims about IP violations for Western companies. Beijing eased some tensions during the 2010s by improving its enforcement regime on intellectual property, and increasingly over recent decades, has focused on protecting the country’s expanding IP portfolio. Read more
Labor Can’t Be Treated As A Mere Voting Bloc — It Has Power To Reshape Society
Costas Lapavitsas – Photo: SOAS University of London
06-25-2026 ~ It is necessary to put the capital-labor relation back at the center of left politics, says Costas Lapavitsas.
The left in western democracies has been pretty much in free fall since the onset of neoliberal globalization. This is quite ironic since resistance to capitalism from civil society has actually grown during the same period. This resistance is also reflected in the U.S. political landscape, where the Democratic Socialists of America are surging in support through grassroots efforts in major urban areas. Voters are clearly signaling that they are fed up with the establishment wing of the Democratic Party, whose leaders continue serving, above all else, corporate and financial interests and have displayed immense hypocrisy on foreign policy issues. The stunning results on June 23 in New York’s primaries — which came on the back of advances already made by Democratic Socialists in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and in Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District, to mention just a few — speak volumes of the ideological bankruptcy of the Democratic Party in the U.S.
But on the rare occasion that left parties have managed to score national electoral victories, as in the case of Greece in 2015, public disappointment and discontent have soon set in as leaders failed to mount a coordinated attack on neoliberal policies and structures, let alone turn class relations on their head.
In the interview that follows, world-renowned radical economist Costas Lapavitsas addresses the structural roots of the left’s political crisis and explains what needs to be done for the left to become again a viable and meaningful alternative to the capitalist dystopia that has engulfed western societies. He highlights, in particular, the case of the U.K., where Member of Parliament Andy Burnham’s “Manchesterism” aims to become the future of the Labour Party’s economic vision. Burnham just won a decisive victory for Labour in the Makerfield by-election, soundly defeating the far right, and setting up the stage for a Labour leadership showdown. Lapavitsas is a professor of economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and a former Syriza Member of Parliament. He is the author and co-author of scores of books, including The Left Case Against the EU, The State of Capitalism: Economy, Society, and Hegemony, and Reindustrialize Britain: A Strategy for Wealth Creation.
C.J. Polychroniou: We live in a world of profound social, political, economic, and ecological challenges. Capitalism is in disarray, the postwar international order is disintegrating, and authoritarian rule is expanding globally. Yet the left is weak and fragmented, experiencing dramatic electoral defeats almost everywhere. What are the structural roots of this crisis, and why has the left failed to build a mass movement in the 21st century?
Costas Lapavitsas: We need to be careful about generalizations here. The left is not the same across the world, and lumping together the Brazilian left, the Indian left, the European left, and the U.S. left produces confusion. Even within Europe there are significant differences. Let me focus on the European left, and within that primarily on Britain and Greece, which are the cases I know best and represent extreme versions of the problem.
It is true that this is a moment of historic weakness, perhaps the deepest since the left first began to emerge as a political force in the 18th century. The narrative about its decline usually focuses on leadership failures and ideological drift. There is something to this, but the deeper problem is structural and intellectual. And the rise of the far right across Europe and beyond feeds directly on the vacuum that a weakened and directionless left has left behind.
The organized working class that built the labor movement, created the welfare state, and gave the left its mass base in the 20th century was a product of industrial capitalism, with manufacturing at its heart. Neoliberalism, beginning in the 1980s, systematically undermined it. Employment was created in service sectors — retail, hospitality, logistics, care work — where bargaining power is weak, turnover is high, and collective organization is extremely difficult. Union density collapsed and collective bargaining coverage shrank. When a steelworks, shipyard or engineering plant closes, a community loses more than jobs. It loses apprenticeship routes, trade-union organization, technical skills, and often the institutions that gave working people collective confidence. The destruction of manufacturing was simultaneously the destruction of the organizational capacity of labor, and ultimately of the left.
The intellectual dimension is equally important. The European left gradually moved away from the political economy that had historically been its theoretical foundation — from the serious examination of capital-labor relations, investment, profit, and the structural sources of economic power. In a word, away from production. In its place came rights-based politics and anti-austerity politics. Both have genuine moral force, but neither constitutes an anti-capitalist program. What is necessary for that is analysis of the supply side of the economy, radical alternative strategies for investment and ownership, a solid framework for altering the capital-labor relation in favor of workers. Without these, the left can identify injustice with clarity and moral passion but cannot propose a concrete path beyond it.
The historic task of the left today is not simply to redistribute existing wealth more fairly but to rebuild the conditions under which wealth can be created democratically, through productive investment, skilled labor, and institutions capable of directing economic development in the interests of the majority. That requires organized labor rooted in production and armed with serious political economy. Rebuilding the power of the left is impossible otherwise. Read more
Ritual, Power, And The Weekend Arena
Gary M. Feinman
06-22-2026 ~ In a March 2026 paper published in the journal Science Advances, which focused on variability in governance along the autocratic-democratic axis, my coauthors and I found that one of the strongest associations for the 40 case observations, which were part of our study, was between the nature of rituals and the concentration of power.
For this global sample, autocratically organized societies were characterized by spectacles that foment fear and awe, while participatory rituals predominated in more democratically organized contexts. For example, in the region where I study (Oaxaca, Mexico), when governance was typified by distributed power relations, the pre-Hispanic rubber ball game was played in a large court adjacent to a broad, flat open plaza, the Main Plaza at Monte Albán, a space that could accommodate many of the settlement’s inhabitants. Later, however, as political power became more concentrated, the size of ball courts was reduced, access to them became more restricted, and some were even built immediately adjacent to the houses or palaces of ruling families.
Social scientists have long recognized that communal rituals are a universal human experience that binds people together in various ways. Spectacles, often rich in disorienting noise, shock, and awe, tend to captivate observers through the powerful figures at the center of the spectacle, who inspire fear and wonderment, reinforcing authoritarian cults of personality. In contrast, participatory rituals like communal dancing, singing, or chanting tend to instill camaraderie among participants, solidarity, and trust among those involved. As a student of history and a sports fan, the mirrored reflections of the past provide an analytical perspective about the final Knicks game on June 13, a sports agenda that cannot be ignored.
During the 2026 National Basketball Association playoff between the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs, Madison Square Garden, the storied home of the Knicks, once again became like a civic commons after a 53-year championship drought. The competitiveness of the Knicks during the playoffs elevated the space from merely being a site of entertainment to a participatory ritual arena. The crowd did not passively observe; it chanted, rose, groaned, anticipated, and collectively willed momentum into existence. One needed to only look at the faces in the stands—season ticket holders and first-timers, celebrities and subway riders alike—to notice that the sight was closer to what might be considered an integrative ritual: one in which meaning is not imposed from above but generated, often with spontaneity, among participants.
Basketball, by definition, is a team sport, but this is typified by the game that the Knicks currently play. It is not about consistent domination by a central figure. Even the most celebrated player, Jalen Brunson, depends on coordination, timing, and trust in his teammates. The drama unfolds collectively, and its outcome remains contingent on who makes a foul shot and who grabs a rebound. Participation matters—not just symbolically but materially. The arena amplifies the idea, however imperfectly enacted, that communal engagement shapes outcomes. And these outcomes transcended the arenas where the Knicks games were played, stimulating joy and collective actions, and bringing people together in the desire for a common outcome.
By contrast, the spectacle of an Ultimate Fighting Championship event, staged in a garish steel cage, on the grounds of the White House on June 14 operated on a fundamentally different ritual logic. It was not designed for mutual participation but for spectacle: with the concentration of attention onto a staged center, where one-on-one conflict and mayhem are distilled into physical dominance and symbolic submission. The audience’s role is not to join but to witness—to be awed, to see blood and hear pain, be unsettled, and ultimately to orient themselves toward the figures who command the stage and oversee the event.
The choice of venue was not incidental. The White House has long functioned as a site of state ritual. But traditionally, those rituals—press briefings, public ceremonies, even contentious protests beyond its gates—are tethered, at least aspirationally, to norms of decorum, accountability, and public engagement. Introducing a choreographed combat spectacle into that space shifts its symbolic significance. It recasts a locus of governance into an arena of performance, where the aesthetic of dominance and self-promotion, by a small network of cronies, overshadows any ethical prospect of leading to wider participation.
This is precisely the distinction our comparative work on governance and ritual helps illuminate. When power is broadly distributed, rituals tend to be inclusive, iterative, and co-constructed. They require participants to see one another as collaborators in a shared process, even when competition is involved. In contrast, when power is tightly concentrated, rituals often become spectacles—staged experiences that reinforce hierarchy, channel emotions toward a focal point, and reduce the audience to spectators instead of actors. The Knicks, for all the commercialism of modern sports, still lean toward the former model. Their playoff games invited identification not with an owner but with a collective—however abstract—called a team, a city, a fan base. Victory was widely shared across an entire metropolitan area, communally. The ritual binds laterally, person-to-person.
A UFC spectacle staged in the orbit of political power points in the other direction. It binds vertically. The emotional energy of the crowd is drawn upward and inward, toward a center that is insulated from participation. The unpredictability of sport is replaced by an orchestrated spectacle; even the violence, ostensibly raw, is framed and contained to produce maximum symbolic effect. None of this is to suggest that one form of ritual is wholly virtuous and the other entirely malign. Spectacle has always been part of human societies, and participatory rituals can exclude to the same extent as they can include. Madison Square Garden is not immune to hierarchy, nor is fandom evenly accessible. But the contrast remains as glaring as instructive because it reveals not just different entertainments, but different models of how people relate to power—and to one another.
At stake is more than this season’s recreational programming. Rituals, whether ancient ball games in Mesoamerica or modern sporting events in New York, are not peripheral to political life; they are constitutive of it. They shape how individuals experience belonging, authority, and agency. They encode assumptions about who acts and who is meant to watch. The event at the White House reinforces values such as “might makes right” and life is a “zero-sum game.”
Alternatively, in an era when democratic practices often feel attenuated, the spaces where participation is still enacted—even imperfectly—carry heightened significance, thereby fostering shared aims and emphasizing the potential win-win-win outcomes that interdependence and collaborative action can generate. The roar of a crowd that believes its collective voice matters stands in quiet contrast to spectacles that ask only for attention, passivity, and allegiance.
We would do well to recognize the difference.
By Gary M. Feinman
Author Bio: Gary M. Feinman is an archaeologist and the MacArthur curator of anthropology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.
Credit Line: This article was produced by Human Bridges, a project of the Independent Media Institute.