Seattle put its money where its mouth is when it comes to #NoDAPL.

Seattle is two states and one big mountain range away from North Dakota.

But for Lisa Herbold, a Seattle city council member, the voices of folks shivering outside in America's heartland needed to be heard.

"It really moves me to think of the people who are hundreds of miles away from us today, waiting in the cold for our vote," Herbold explained to the Los Angeles Times.


Thankfully, Seattle was listening. And it voted unanimously on the right side of history.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

On Feb. 7, 2017, Seattle became the first city in the country to cut financial ties to the Dakota Access Pipeline, or DAPL — a project that could contaminate the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's clean water supply.

Seattle wasn't directly funding the pipeline, of course. But Wells Fargo bank is.

The bank says it's provided $120 million in loans — a dramatic underestimate to some critics — for the pipeline's construction. And for many Seattle residents, that's a problem.

The city had been in business with Wells Fargo until Tuesday, when council members voted to have the Emerald City move its $3 billion account from Wells Fargo to a bank that hasn't funded DAPL.

The transfer makes for one of the bank's largest consumer blowbacks ever.

Photo by David McNew/AFP/Getty Images.

In a statement, Wells Fargo said it was "disappointed" in the city's vote and that it "will continue investing in [Seattle's] diverse and dynamic community."

The bank's not getting any sympathy from council member Kshama Sawant, though: "We’re making it bad for their bottom line."

And to DAPL opponents like herself, that's the whole point.

What happened in Seattle is welcome news for opponents of the pipeline at a time when they could certainly use a win.

Many DAPL protesters have been feeling particularly discouraged recently as President Donald Trump gave the go-ahead for continued DAPL drilling (Barack Obama had halted construction before leaving office). On Feb. 8 — the day after Seattle voted to separate itself from Wells Fargo — drilling started up again, NBC News reported, and the company behind the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, was granted all mandatory approvals to carry on.

But Seattle made major waves by pulling the plug on Wells Fargo, and we may start to see other cities following suit.

"What Seattle voted to do ... is sending shockwaves through the banking industry," activist Shaun King wrote for The Daily News. "For pretty much their entire existence, banks have gotten away with taking our business, holding our money, and charging us fees, while simultaneously funding our oppression. People have had enough."

The vote in Seattle marks a major victory in the divestment movement — an effort to get people, groups, and governments to quit supporting businesses that are making DAPL possible.

A demonstrator in Los Angeles protests the Dakota Access pipeline. Photo by Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images.

Although Wells Fargo is one of the largest backers of the pipeline, many other well-known banks — including Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America — are quietly helping DAPL become a reality. (In fact, you'll probably recognize a lot of familiar names on the list of funders.)

If you refuse to play along with banks using your support to help fund DAPL, take your business elsewhere.

There are plenty of banks not supporting DAPL that also have good track records when it comes to a range of other social, economic, and environmental issues. Credit unions, too, can be a great alternative — they're nonprofits, tend to invest locally, and offer low interest rates and fees.

The corporate forces behind DAPL are strong. But as Seattle showed the world, you — and your bank account — are no weaklings.

"In the end, when you are fighting for what’s right, the rising tide of history will be on your side," wrote King. "Our fight may be hard, but be encouraged, we will win."

More

Whenever someone's words or behavior are called out as racist, a few predictable responses always follow. One is to see the word "racist" as a vicious personal attack. Two is to vehemently deny that whatever was said or done was racist. And three is to pull out the dictionary definition of racism to prove that the words or behavior weren't racist.

Honestly, as soon as someone refers to the dictionary when discussing racism, it's clear that person has never delved deeply into trying to understand racism. It's a big old red flag, every time.

I'm not an expert on race relations, but I've spent many years learning from people who are. And I've learned that the reality of racism is nuanced and complex, and resorting to a short dictionary definition completely ignores that fact. The dictionary can't include all of the ways racism manifests in individuals and society, and the limitations of dictionary definitions make it a poor tool for discussing the topic.

Since "racism" is such a loaded term for many people, let's look at such limitations through a different complex word. Let's take "anxiety." According to Merriam-Webster, "anxiety" is defined as "apprehensive uneasiness or nervousness, usually over an impending or anticipated ill."

Now imagine thinking that you understand everything that encompasses anxiety from reading that dictionary definition. Imagine thinking you could recognize the signs of anxiety in someone based on that definition alone. Ridiculous, right? The dictionary doesn't explain that some people's anxiety manifests as anger, even though it does. It doesn't say that anxiety sometimes manifests as withdrawal or aloofness. It doesn't say that you often won't see obvious signs of fear or nervousness in someone experiencing anxiety.

The dictionary doesn't offer anything close to the reality of what anxiety is or looks like. It would be silly to say that someone isn't experiencing anxiety because they're not clearly showing signs of nervousness like the dictionary definition implies. Just as the dictionary definition of anxiety is not comprehensive, neither is the dictionary definition of racism. Yet people keep using it to "prove" that something or someone isn't racist.

Fox News analyst Brit Hume just pulled that trick on Twitter to try to back up his claim that Donald Trump's "go back to" statements to four Congresswomen of color weren't technically racist.


The first Merriam-Webster entry for "racism" reads "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Merriam-Webster

First of all, I'm not sure how this definition actually makes Trump's statements not racist. A belief is not always conscious, so even assuming that his racism is unconscious, a white man telling four women of color to "go back to" their countries of origin—despite three of them being born in the U.S. and the fourth being a naturalized citizen of the U.S.—is pretty objectively racist. No one knows exactly what is going on in the President's head, but such statements only being made to women of color would certainly be consistent with the behavior of someone with a belief in white people's inherent superiority.

But that simple definition isn't truly definitive, either. Shortly after Hume's tweet, Merriam-Webster pointed out a usage note for the word "racism," which clarifies that dictionaries do not provide the be-all-end-all definition of words.

Anti-racism advocates have tried time and time again to explain that racism is not as straightforward as someone saying, "I think I'm superior to people who don't share my skin color." Racism is almost never that blatant, and yet oodles of Americans refuse to call anything less than that kind of bold statement "racism." We have a long history showing exactly how white supremacy—the origin of racism in the U.S.—exerts itself in both strong and subtle ways, and thousands of hours and pages of education from experts describing how racism works on an individual and societal level. But people still insist on the simplistic narrative of "Racism=hating people of a different race."

I've seen many people, including Brit Hume, argue that the word racism has lost all meaning. Frankly, that's a copout. Racism—as both a conscious or unconscious belief of racial superiority and as a system of racial prejudice blended with power dynamics—has a broader meaning than one person hating another person for the color of their skin. But that doesn't make it meaningless.

I've also seen people complain that "everything is racist these days," but no, it's really not. We simply understand more about racism now, thanks to the field of race studies and to people of color offering their time and energy to explain it, so it's easier to identify in its various forms. In my experience, when someone's understanding of racism reaches a certain stage, they start recognizing it in places where ignorance or unconscious bias may have caused them to miss it in the past. That's not imagining racism where it doesn't exist or "calling everything racist these days"; that's simply seeing reality more clearly.

When you really dive deep into the historical, psychological, and sociological reality of racism in America, it becomes painfully obvious that racism is far more prevalent and enmeshed in our society than most people think. Until defensive, mostly-white folks stop automatically denying racism every time the word is used and stop throwing around dictionaries to avoid having to do that deep dive work, we're not going to make real headway on this issue.

Let's stop pretending that the definition and supposed overuse of the word "racism" is the problem, when the problem is racism, period.

Democracy
Photo by Hunters Race on Unsplash

If you're a woman and you want to be a CEO, you should probably think about changing your name to "Jeffrey" or "Michael." Or possibly even "Michael Jeffreys" or "Jeffrey Michaels."

According to Fortune, last year, more men named Jeffrey and Michael became CEOs of America's top companies than women. A whopping total of one woman became a CEO, while two men named Jeffrey took the title, and two men named Michael moved into the C-suite as well.

The "New CEO Report" for 2018, which looks at new CEOS for the 250 largest S&P 500 companies, found that 23 people were appointed to the position of CEO. Only one of those 23 people was a woman. Michelle Gass, the new CEO of Kohl's, was the lone female on the list.

Keep Reading Show less
popular

California has a housing crisis. Rent is so astronomical, one San Francisco company is offering bunk bedsfor $1,200 a month; Google even pledged$1 billion to help tackle the issue in the Bay Area. But the person who might fix it for good? Kanye West.

The music mogul first announced his plan to build low-income housing on Twitter late last year.

"We're starting a Yeezy architecture arm called Yeezy home. We're looking for architects and industrial designers who want to make the world better," West tweeted.

Keep Reading Show less
Cities

At Trump's 'Social Media Summit' on Thursday, he bizarrely claimed Arnold Schwarzenegger had 'died' and he had witnessed said death. Wait, what?!


He didn't mean it literally - thank God. You can't be too sure! After all, he seemed to think that Frederick Douglass was still alive in February. More recently, he described a world in which the 1770s included airports. His laissez-faire approach to chronology is confusing, to say the least.

Keep Reading Show less
Democracy