Stark difference between Joe Biden and Donald Trump highlighted by views on Juneteenth celebrations
For many Americans, the chance seeing a former US president in the flesh is a once-in-a-lifetime novelty.
Those flying on a commercial carrier to Texas this week were quick to record the presence of
Joe Biden
sitting among them, with requests for selfies happily obliged with.
Biden was headed to Galveston to mark the annual Juneteenth celebrations. He made what had for years been a sacrosanct date in African-American history and culture into a federal holiday in 2021.
The day marks one of the more extraordinary stories in the complex and bleak history of slavery in the US. On June 19th, 1865, some 2½ years after the by-then slain president Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, word finally reached African Americans in the island city of Galveston, Texas, that they were, in fact, free.
READ MORE
The news, which came with the arrival of Union army general Gordon Granger, was greeted with stunned disbelief and then euphoric celebrations.
Last Thursday, June 19th, that moment was marked by events and parties throughout the country. But in the White House, it was noted that the scheduled plan for US president
Donald Trump
to sign a proclamation did not materialise.
'I'm not tracking his signature on a proclamation today,' was the terse response of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt when she was asked about the issue.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she was not aware of plans by Donald Trump to commemorate Juneteenth. Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times
'I know this is a Federal holiday. I want thank all of you for showing up to work – we are certainly here. We're working 24/7 right now.'
During his first administration, Trump consistently paid homage to what was still an unofficial holiday, referencing Granger's announcement and paying tribute to the 'courage and sacrifice of the nearly 200,000 former enslaved and free African Americans who fought for liberty'.
In 2020, he cancelled a rally that had been planned for June 19th in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the location of one of the most notorious race massacres in US history. In the days afterwards, Trump blithely flipped the fallout by claiming that the coverage had helped to establish the importance of the day in the minds of many Americans.
'I did something good. I made it famous. I made Juneteenth very famous. It's actually an important event. But nobody had heard of it. Very few people had heard of it,' he said.
This year, however, he remained uncharacteristically silent about the observation of the day until he issued a late-evening personal proclamation via social media grousing about the number of federally approved days off.
'Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our country billions of dollars to keep all of these businesses close. The workers don't want it either! Soon we'll end up having a holiday for every ... working day of the year. It must change if we are going to make America great again.'
Protesters attend a Juneteenth demonstration against US immigration officials in New York on Thursday. Photograph: Michael M Santiago/Getty
The remark was interpreted as a veiled threat to cancel a day which prominent campaigners such as Sam Collins III, or 'Professor Juneteenth', and Ronald Meyers, a physician and civil rights activist, had spent decades advocating for.
It took until 1980 before Juneteenth became a state holiday in Texas and another four decades for a US president to recognise it officially.
In a profile in the Texas Observer last year, Collins said the country only began to pay attention to the Juneteenth Observance Foundation after the death, through police brutality, of
George Floyd
and the subsequent nationwide protests in 2020.
But Thursday's significant silence from Trump is in keeping with the blunt ideology of his administration when it comes to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) issues. Juneteenth seems set for a bumpy few years as it is dragged into the deepening culture wars.
'If Juneteenth was really about emancipation, why not ... September 22nd, 1862, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation?' right-wing media personality Charlie Kirk asked on social media before answering for himself.
'It's about creating a summertime, race-based competitor two weeks before July 4th, which should be the most unifying civic holiday on the calendar.'
Biden was last in the spotlight more than a month ago when a furious bout of publicity over a book charting his cognitive decline was overshadowed by the announcement that he is suffering from cancer.
'It's not that hard to get invited once,' he told the gathering in Reedy Chapel, Galveston. 'But to get invited back is a big deal. Still today, some say to me and you that this doesn't deserve to be a federal holiday. They don't want to remember what we all remember: the moral stain of slavery. I've often called it America's original sin. Well, I took the view as president that we need to be honest about our history.'
The episode once again illuminated the stark difference in outlook and spirit between the former president and the current one, whose mood was unlikely to have been cheered by the flood of responses to his social media post.
'I voted for you, but this comment is ridiculous,' one person replied to Trump's post. 'I know you don't care if people like you, but if you want to be popular you must acknowledge this date. There is historical and cultural significance to this date. Your lack of compassion is alarming.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
Israel-Iran war stretches into a second week without diplomatic breakthrough
Hours of talks aimed at de-escalating fighting between Israel and Iran failed to produce a diplomatic breakthrough as the war entered its second week with a fresh round of strikes between the two adversaries. European ministers and Iran's top diplomat met for four hours on Friday in Geneva, as President Donald Trump continued to weigh US military involvement and worries rose over potential strikes on nuclear reactors. European officials expressed hope for future negotiations, and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said he was open to further dialogue while emphasising that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the US while Israel continued attacking. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes,' he told reporters. Benjamin Netanyahu visits the site of the Weizmann Institute of Science, which was hit by missiles fired from Iran (Jack Guez/Pool Photo via AP) No date was set for the next round of talks. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue 'for as long as it takes' to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear programme and arsenal of ballistic missiles. Israel's top general echoed the warning, saying the Israeli military was ready 'for a prolonged campaign'. But Mr Netanyahu's goal could be out of reach without US help. Iran's underground Fordo uranium enrichment facility is considered to be out of reach to all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. Mr Trump said he would put off deciding whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran for up to two weeks. The war between Israel and Iran erupted on June 13, with Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Iran has retaliated by firing 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Most have been shot down by Israel's multi-tiered air defences, but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Israel's defence minister said on Saturday it killed a commander in Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard who financed and armed Hamas in preparation for the October 7 2023 attack on Israel that sparked the 20-month long war in Gaza. Israel said Saeed Izadi was commander of the Palestine Corps for the Iranian Quds Force, an elite arm of the Guard that conducts military and intelligence operations outside Iran, and that he was killed in an apartment in the city of Qom.
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Mahmoud Khalil released after US judge says standards for detention ‘clearly not met'
Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil was released from US immigration detention, where he had been held for more than three months over his activism against Israel's war on Gaza . Khalil, the most high profile of the students to be arrested by the Trump administration for their pro-Palestinian activism, and the last of them still in detention, was ordered to be released by a federal judge on Friday afternoon from an Ice facility in Jena, Louisiana, where he had been held since shortly after plainclothes immigration agents detained him in early March in the lobby of his Columbia building. The 30-year-old emerged from the remote detention centre just after 6.30pm local time, walking through two towering gates topped with razor wire and accompanied by two attorneys into the late afternoon sun and intense humidity. He briefly addressed the small group of media assembled outside. READ MORE 'Although justice prevailed it's very long overdue and this shouldn't have taken three months,' he said. 'I leave some incredible men behind me, over 1,000 people behind me, in a place where they shouldn't have been.' Asked to respond to allegations made by the Trump administration, which has fought for months to keep him detained, that his pro-Palestinian organising constituted a national security threat, he said: 'Trump and his administration, they chose the wrong person for this. That doesn't mean there is a right person for this. There is no right person who should be detained for actually protesting a genocide.' Khalil told reporters he was looking forward to returning home to spend time with his infant son, who was born while his father was detained. 'I can actually hug him,' Khalil said. The federal judge, Michael Farbiarz, said during the hearing on Friday that Khalil is not a flight risk, and 'is not a danger to the community. Period, full stop.' 'It is highly, highly unusual to be seeking detention of a petitioner given the factual record of today,' Farbiarz also said during the hearing. Farbiarz said that the government had 'clearly not met' the standards for detention. Later on Friday, Khalil was ordered to surrender his passport and green card to Ice officials in Jena as part of his conditional release. The order also stipulated that Khalil's travel be limited to a handful of US states, including New York, as Louisiana, Michigan and New Jersey for court appearances. Khalil's arrest was widely decried as a dangerous escalation in the Trump administration's campaign against speech protected by the first amendment to the US constitution. Khalil has not been charged with a crime. His detention was the first in a series of arrests of international student activists, and his release marks the latest in a series of defeats for the administration, which had promised to deport pro-Palestinian international students en masse. Three other students detained on similar grounds – Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri and Mohsen Mahdawi – were previously released while their immigration cases are pending. A number of others voluntarily left the country after deportation proceedings against them were opened; another is in hiding as she fights her case. Farbiarz, of the federal district court in Newark, New Jersey, had previously found that the law invoked to detain Khalil – a rarely used immigration provision allowing the secretary of state to order the deportation of anyone found to have an adverse effect on US foreign policy – is probably unconstitutional. Government officials had accused Khalil of anti-Semitism and of pro-Hamas advocacy, without providing any evidence. Jewish students and faculty had submitted court documents on Khalil's behalf, and he was quoted last year on CNN saying that 'the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand-by-hand, and you cannot achieve one without the other'. Farbiaz ordered Khalil's release in his federal court case, which was brought to challenge his detention. His immigration case will proceed on a separate track. While the government has suffered setbacks to its foreign policy argument in multiple courts, it is likely to continue arguing that its efforts to deport Khalil are also supported by alleged omissions in his green card application – arguments it brought several weeks after he was first detained, and which his attorneys have rejected. Khalil is married to a US citizen, Noor Abdallah, who gave birth to their first child during her husband's detention. 'I fight for you, and for every Palestinian child whose life deserves safety, tenderness and freedom,' Khalil wrote to his newborn son, Deen, last month. 'I hope one day you will stand tall knowing your father was not absent out of apathy, but out of conviction.' In a statement provided by Khalil's lawyers, Abdalla said she can finally 'breathe a sigh of relief' after the ruling. 'We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others, but today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family.' In response to the news that the judge had ordered Khalil to be released on Friday, Amnesty International USA celebrated the decision, calling it 'overdue' and called on the Trump administration to 'immediately comply with this order'. - Guardian
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
If Netanyahu wants regime change in Iran, it is unlikely to end well
It is not yet certain whether Donald Trump will approve US involvement in Israel 's assault on Iran which began last week. While Israel has inflicted severe losses on Iran and appears to have disabled its air defences, there is a broad consensus that, without US intervention, the goal of disabling Iran's nuclear programme will be unachievable. To this end, a great deal of attention has been paid to the Fordow nuclear facility , close to the city of Qom, which is at the heart of the programme of uranium enrichment and much of which is located 80-90m underground. In 2009, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that the facility held about 3,000 centrifuges which are central to the enrichment process. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the deal which Iran signed in 2015, uranium enrichment ceased at Fordow. But, when the US pulled out of that agreement under the first Trump administration, production restarted. Now the assumption is that only the so-called 'bunker buster' bombs possessed by the US are capable of destroying the facility at Fordow. However, the US president's announcement of a two-week deadline to decide if his country will join Israel's attack speaks to uncertainty regarding its likely success and divisions within his support base. Either way, the one-sided nature of the conflict so far – which has seen Israel inflict far more significant losses on Iran, both in terms of military leadership and civilian casualties, than it has sustained – raises the question of whether regime-change in Tehran is on the agenda. From the outset, Israeli leaders have expressly stated that this is not a key objective. However, they have made it equally clear that they would welcome the fall of the Islamic Republic should it happen. Indeed, Binyamin Netanyahu has called on Iranians to 'stand up for their freedom'. As for Trump, his rhetoric has shifted dramatically over the course of the past several weeks, from an initial position which saw him urge restraint on Netanyahu, and talk up the prospect of success in negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme, to his more recent darker utterances regarding the prospect of direct US involvement to put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions. All of this, in turn, suggests Trump has been bounced into supporting Israel's assault on Iran through Netanyahu's pre-emptive actions last Thursday. READ MORE Israel needs Trump's 'bunker buster' but will US enter the war? Listen | 31:22 Since Israel launched air strikes on Iran last Friday, the two states have traded missiles with mounting casualties on both military leaders have been killed as have some of its nuclear scientists but the country's citizens have borne the brunt of the air has said its rationale for the middle-of-the-night attack that sparked the war was its need to ensure, for its own protection, that Iran's nuclear programme is close Iran is to actually having a nuclear bomb is unclear but for Israel to obliterate entirely the nuclear threat it needs the US to join the war, to send its 'bunker buster' mega bomb to destroy the Fordo uranium enrichment facility buried deep in the by Bernice Harrison. Produced by Declan Conlon. While the likely course of US action on Iran remains unpredictable, it is clear that neither Israel nor the United States has a plan for – or indeed any coherent understanding of – what might follow from the fall of the regime in Tehran, beyond wilfully optimistic assumptions regarding its positive impact on the country and the region. However, history teaches us that such optimistic assumptions are rarely well placed. The reality is that when we have seen external involvement in the affairs of Iran and the Middle East more generally, the results have never been straightforward and rarely positive. [ Could Israel's attacks on Iran create a nuclear contamination risk? Opens in new window ] In Iran in 1953, the country's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq, was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Mossadeq's government nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which was a forerunner to BP), a move that was widely popular in the country but alarming to the UK and the US. As events unfolded, the Shah of Iran, fearing the worst, left the country. However, Mossadeq was removed from power in August 1953 and the Shah returned to preside over an increasingly repressive regime, until his removal during the revolution of 1979. As is so often the case with external interventions of this nature, Mossadeq's removal had unintended consequences. The events of 1953 dealt a severe blow to liberal and democratic politics in Iran while the Shah was seen as little more than an American puppet – factors contributing to the revolution which ended his rule in 1979 and inaugurated the Islamic Republic of Iran. More recently, the ill-conceived US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 brought years of violent conflict to the country, led to the sectarianisation of its politics and helped pave the way for the emergence of the so-called Islamic State , while strengthening the position of the Iranian regime in the region, along the way. Likewise, western intervention in Libya in 2011 did nothing to contribute to peace and stability in that country. This is not to say that Iranians cannot mobilise in the face of a repressive regime; Iran has a long history of such mobilisation. As far back as the early 20th century, the 'constitutional revolution' of the period from 1906 to 1911 saw mass demonstrations that forced the Shah to agree to a written constitution and the establishment of an elected parliament. That mobilisation was motivated by a number of grievances, including disillusionment with the ruling elite, as well as resentment at foreign influence and interference in the affairs of the country. While many of the gains of this period were subsequently reversed, the constitution remained in place until the revolution of 1979. Decades later, mass mobilisation led to the end of the Pahlavi dynasty, which had ruled Iran since 1925 with significant western support. However, the post-1979 period has also witnessed expressions of dissent from the governing orthodoxy in the country. In 2009, mass protests broke out when the hardline Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed victory in the presidential election of June 12th that year, despite widespread electoral irregularities and claims by opposition candidates that the vote was rigged. After the announcement of the results, supporters of opposition candidates took to the streets in protest. By June 15th, as many as two million people were on the streets of Tehran. The protests were ultimately suppressed with the deaths of dozens of protesters and the arrests of thousands. Thirteen years later, unrest and protests broke out again on a mass scale following the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini, whose 'crime' was the violation of Iran's mandatory hijab law by wearing hers 'improperly'. The protest movement that followed adopted the slogan 'Women, Life, Freedom' but subsequently grew into open calls for the removal of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. Once more the protests were violently suppressed, and 500 people lost their lives. Popular mobilisation in Iran for more than 100 years has been driven by domestic actors in pursuit of domestic agendas and never by external forces. It is unlikely that Netanyahu's call on the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their government will alter that record. Dr Vincent Durac lectures in Middle East politics in the UCD school of politics and international relations
