The ceasefire agreed between Israel and Hamas makes provisions for the passage of food and humanitarian aid into Gaza. This support is much needed given that Gazas agricultural system has been severely damaged over the course of the war.
Over the past 17 months we have analysed satellite images across the Gaza Strip to quantify the scale of agricultural destruction across the region. Our newly published research reveals not only the widespread extent of this destruction but also the potentially unprecedented pace at which it occurred. Our work covers the period until September 2024 but further data through to January 2025 is also available.
Before the war, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and strawberries were grown in open fields and greenhouses, and olive and citrus trees lined rows across the Gazan landscape. The trees in particular are an important cultural heritage in the region, and agriculture was a vital part of Gazas economy. About half of the food eaten there was produced in the territory itself, and food made up a similar portion of its exports.
By December 2023, only two months into the war, there were official warnings that the entire population of Gaza, more than 2 million people, was facing high levels of acute food insecurity. While that assessment was based on interviews and survey data, the level of agricultural damage across the whole landscape remained out of view.
Tree crop damage by month from October 2023 to September 2024. The months in which damage first occurred are in blue and purple, while undamaged tree crops are shown in green. [Image: Yin et al (2025)]
Most olive and citrus trees are gone
To address this problem, we mapped the damage to tree crops mostly olive and citrus trees in Gaza each month over the course of the war up until September 2024. Together with our colleagues Dimah Habash and Mazin Qumsiyeh, we did this using very high-resolution satellite imagery, detailed enough to focus on individual trees.
We first visually identified tree crops with and without damage to train our computer program, or model, so it knew what to look for. We then ran the model on all the satellite data. We also looked over a sample of results ourselves to confirm it was accurate.
Our results showed that between 64% and 70% of all tree crop fields in Gaza had been damaged. That can either mean a few trees being destroyed, the whole field of trees completely removed, or anything in between. Most damage took place during the first few months of the war in autumn 2023. Exactly who destroyed these trees and why is beyond the scope of our research or expertise.
Greenhouses and the date of initial damage between October 2023 and September 2024. [Image: Yin et al (2025)]
In some areas, every greenhouse is gone
As greenhouses look very different in satellite images, we used a separate method to map damage to them. We found over 4,000 had been damaged by September 2024, which is more than half of the total we had identified before the start of the war.
In the south of the territory, where most greenhouses were found, the destruction was fairly steady from December 2023 onwards.
But in north Gaza and Gaza City, the two most northerly of the territorys five governorates, most of the damage had already taken place by November and December 2023. By the end of our study period, all 578 greenhouses there had been destroyed.
North Gaza and Gaza City have also seen the most damage to tree crop fields. By September 2024, over 90% of all tree crops in Gaza City had been destroyed, and 73% had been lost in north Gaza. In the three southern governorates, Khan Younis, Deir al-Balah and Rafah, around 50% of all tree crops had been destroyed.
Agricultural damage is common in armed conflict, and has been documented with satellite analysis in Ukraine since the 2022 Russian invasion, in Syria and Iraq during the ISIS occupation in 2015, and in the Caucasus during the Chechen wars in the 1990s and 2000s.
Satellite images show destruction of trees (top) and greenhouses (bottom) in north Gaza. [Image: Yin et al (2025)]
The exact impact can differ from conflict to conflict. War may directly damage lands, as we have seen in Gaza, or it may lead to more fallow reas as infrastructure is damaged and farmers are forced to flee. A conflict also increases the need for local agricultural production, especially when food imports are restricted.
Our assessment shows a very high rate of direct and extensive damage to Gazas agricultural system, both compared to previous conflict escalations there in 2014 and 2021, and in other conflict settings. For example, during the July-August war in 2014, around 1,200 greenhouses were damaged in Gaza. This time round at least three times as many have been damaged.
Agricultural attacks are unlawful
Attacks on agricultural lands are prohibited under international law. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court from 1998 defines the intentional use of starvation of civilians through depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival as a war crime. The Geneva conventions further define such indispensable objects as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production offoodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works.
Our study provides transparent statistics on the extent and timing of damage to Gazas agricultural system. As well as documenting the impacts of the war, we hope it can help the massive rebuilding efforts that will be required.
Restoring Gazas agricultural system goes beyond clearing debris and rubble, and rebuilding greenhouses. The soils need to be cleaned from possible contamination. Sewage and irrigation infrastructure need to be rebuilt.
Such efforts may take a generation or more to complete. After all, olive and citrus trees can take five or more years to become productive, and 15 years to reach full maturity. After previous attacks on Gaza the trees were mostly replanted, and perhaps the same will happen again this time. But its for good reason they say that only people with hope for the future plant trees.
Lina Eklund is an associate senior lecturer at Lund University.
He Yin is an assistant professor of geography at Kent State University.
Jamon Van Den Hoek is an associate professor of geography at Oregon State University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hate speech on X dramatically increased during the several months that Elon Musk served as CEO when compared to the prior months, according to a new study.
The analysis, published Wednesday, showed that hate speech spiked on the platform shortly before Musk purchased X (then called Twitter), and continued through May 2023. Researchers found that the weekly rate of hate speech was up about 50% over the months prior to Musk’s purchase. The study noted an increase in use of homophobic, transphobic, and racist slurs.
The researchers also found a spike in “likes” of hate posts, which they said indicate increased engagement. The findings run contrary to Musk’s claims that hate speech impressions on the platform were sloping downward. (X did not respond to Fast Company‘s request for comment.)
To be sure, the researchers said they could not set firm conclusions on a cause-effect relationship between Musk’s acquisition of X and the findings. Still, they argued for stronger moderation and more research.
“Overall, these results highlight a need for increased moderation to combat hate and inauthentic accounts on X,” the researchers wrote. Once Musk took over the social media company, he quickly loosened restrictions on what can be said or shared on the platform.
The study’s release coincides with the slow return of many high-profile advertisers to X. Several brands, including Comcast, Apple, IBM, Disney, and Warner Bros., pulled their ad spend from the platform soon after Musk’s takeover, because ads began to appear next to hate speech and other offensive content. But now Musk is one of the top officials in President Trump’s administration, and some may want to bolster their relationships with Musk. Apple is reportedly considering returning to the platform. Comcast, IBM, Disney, and Warner Bros. have all resumed ad spend, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Still, ad buyers have said that brands that return to X are spending much less than they were before Musk acquired the company. (Amazon is reportedly upping its ad spend.)
Longstanding workplace issues such as mistreatment, the normalization of toxic behaviour and a lack of accountability for workplace culture have fueled a growing trend known as revenge quitting.
This phenomenon, on the rise since the 2000s, sees employees leaving their jobs not just for better opportunities, but as a form of protest and self-preservation against unfair treatment.
In the past, fear of economic ruin, social stigma and valuing job stability over personal dignity kept many employees from quitting under such circumstances. However, unprecedented inequality and other geopolitical risks are causing an increase in revenge quitting and similar behaviours.
Companies that want to address this issue have much to gain, but they must go beyond diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or human resources strategies. Creating a genuine sense of belonging can reshape workplace culture, boost engagement and overall business success.
Consequences of revenge quitting
When employees resign as a final act of protest against toxic workplace conditions, the impact on organizations can be significant. One of the most obvious consequences is financial loss. Sudden departures lead to expenses related to recruiting, hiring, training, as well as lost productivity and project disruptions.
Organizations also lose valuable institutional knowledge and skills when experienced employees quit, hampering innovation, continuity and long-term strategy.
The abrupt departure of employees also sends a powerful message to remaining staff, potentially leading to decreased morale, trust and engagement.
High-profile cases of revenge quitting can also damage an organizations reputation, affecting customer relationships and investor confidence.
Finally, revenge quitting can have lasting consequences on workplace culture. If the toxic behaviour that caused the resignation remains unaddressed, remaining employees may become disengaged, leading to a decline in work quality.
Mitigating the risk of revenge quitting
My research has found that when employees feel a genuine sense of belonging, they are more engaged and loyal, they produce more innovative and creative solutions, and they are more reliable and productive.
Moreover, belonging buffers against workplace stressors that lead to toxic behaviours by reducing feelings of isolation, mitigating burnout and encouraging active listening before making decisions. This, in turn, decreases the likelihood of employees making abrupt, retaliatory exits.
Employees want to work for companies that respect their individuality and value their contributions. High-performing teams thrive when there is clear accountability, fair conflict resolution and a culture of feedback and learning. Addressing toxic behaviours early helps maintain trust and reduces the risk of retaliatory quitting.
Its also essential to distinguish between belonging and merely fitting in. True belonging is a reciprocated behaviour between employees and the organization, not solely the employees responsibility. Organizations that focus only on forcing employees to fit in overlook the systemic changes required to foster true benefits.
Belonging requires an active commitment to the five core indicators of belonging: comfort, connection, psychological safety and well-being. Each indicator is essential in reducing the desire to disengage or quit out of frustration or retaliation.
Pillar 1: Comfort
Workplace comfort is essential for focus, cognitive function and productivity. While physical factors like temperature, noise and ergonomics matter, social comfort is more critical. Social comfort comes from clear expectations, defined workflows and recognizing individual talents within a team.
When the economy becomes volatile, it can force organizations to deviate from their original strategic plans in an effort to stay afloat. When this happens, comfort is the first thing to erode in a workplace, which allows toxicity to go unchecked.
For example, when economic shifts force leaders to pivot, employees may have to scrap their work. If leadership lacks alignment in the new strategic actions, expectations will rise while clarity drops, creating stress and conflict. Leaders should reset expectations, restore social comfort and ensure collaboration rather than competition.
Pillar 2: Connections
Strong social relationships in the workplace can buffer against stress and enhance resilience. Connection is fostered through mentorship programs, collaboration and informal networking.
In remote and hybrid work settings, ensuring employees feel connected to their teams through structured check-ins and virtual social space is critical.
Connections increase engagement and build emotional attachment, which reduces the risk of employees leaving. Employees who experience meaningful interactions with colleagues and leaders are more engaged and less likely to feel alienated.
Pillar 3: Contributions
Employees need to feel that their work is meaningful and valued. Recognition activates the brains reward system, which reinforces motivation and increases engagement. When employees feel unappreciated, resentment builds. When this happens repetitively, it can lead employees to disengage from their work, and eventually depart.
Organizations must implement structured recognition programs that celebrate individual and team achievements, ensuring employees know their work is valued.
Equally important is offering opportunities for employees to contribute beyond their job descriptions, whether through special projects or mentoring. A workplacethat values and acknowledges contributions fosters commitment and decreases the likelihood of employees resigning.
Pillar 4: Psychological safety
Ensuring employees ideas and concerns are met with curiosity and understanding is crucial for retention. In fear-based workplaces, stress inhibits cognitive function and creativity.
Leaders must create environments where feedback is welcomed, mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities and employees feel empowered to express their perspectives.
Employees feel safe when they work in an environment where feedback is taught and encouraged. They are less likely to disengage or engage in retaliatory behaviours like revenge quitting.
Strategies such as clear communication channels, anonymous feedback mechanisms and inclusive leadership training help create psychological safety.
Pillar 5: Well-being
Employee well-being is tied to cognitive function, emotional regulation and job satisfaction. Employees experiencing chronic stress, burnout or work-life imbalances are more likely to disengage and eventually quit.
Workplace programs that support mental and physical health are crucial. Offering flexible work arrangements, mental health and stress management resources, normalizing breaks and setting boundaries helps sustain employee energy and commitment.
More than a checkbox
Revenge quitting isnt just a series of isolated incidents, but a reflection of a deeper, systemic disregard for worker dignity.
The workforce has changed, with employees now prioritizing workplaces where they feel respected, valued and safe. Companies that fail to adapt will continue to lose experienced, talented workers not because the job market is more competitive, but because employees refuse to tolerate environments that undermine their dignity.
Leaders need to recognize that creating a culture of belonging isnt about checking a DEI box its about ensuring employees have every reason to stay and grow within their organizations.
Andrea Carter, adjunct faculty in industrial and organizational psychology, Adler University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
There’s been a lot of talk about the U.S. buying (or forcibly taking over) other countries recently. But now, a new petition, calling for Denmark to buy California, is flipping the script.
The 100% satirical petition,”Denmarkification,” has cropped up in response to Trump’s declaration of interest in purchasing Greenland, a Denmark territory. And, at present, the tongue-and-cheek call to action has collected over 220K signatures.
Have you ever looked at a map and thought, You know what Denmark needs? More sunshine, palm trees, and roller skates. Well, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make that dream a reality, the petition reads. Lets buy California from Donald Trump! Yes, you heard that right. California could be ours, and we need your help to make it happen.The gimmick, which features the tagline “Make California Great Again” continues, citing California’s most desirable qualities which could be adopted by Denmark, like excellent weather, “Avocado Toast Forever” and Disneyland, which the petition quips Denmark will rename “Hans Christian Andersenland.”
The petition also states that the purchase will “protect the free world,” echoing some of Trump’s previous statements about his intent to buy Greenland.
At a Jan. 7 press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump said, “You have approximately 45,000 people there. People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it. But if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security. That’s for the free world.”
In his last term, Trump floated the idea of buying Greenland, too. However, in 2025, the conversation is ramping up. On Tuesday, a Georgia Republican introduced legislation which would authorize President Donald Trump to acquire the island of Greenland and rename it to Red, White, and Blueland.
America is back and will soon be bigger than ever with the addition of Red, White, and Blueland, said U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter. President Trump has correctly identified the purchase of what is now Greenland as a national security priority, and we will proudly welcome its people to join the freest nation to ever exist when our Negotiator-in-Chief inks this monumental deal.
Of course, Greenland isn’t exactly chomping at the bit to become part of the U.S. Officials in both Greenland and Denmark have said they aren’t interested in the transaction. In a written statement, per Reuters, the prime minister of Greenland, Múte Egsede, said Greenland won’t be sold to the U.S. “Greenland is ours,” Egsede wrote. “We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”
Duo, the infamous Duolingo owl, is dead.
The language-learning app shared the news in a tongue-in-cheek post yesterday. The cause of death remains under investigation, but Duolingo has its own theory: Tbh, he probably died waiting for you to do your lesson, but what do we know? the company wrote on X. Were aware he had many enemies, but we kindly ask you to refrain from sharing why you hate him in the comments.
an important message from Duolingo pic.twitter.com/jTTT680yVs— Duolingo (@duolingo) February 11, 2025
The brand didnt miss an opportunity to plug its premium service either, adding: If you feel inclined to share, please also share your credit card number so we can automatically sign you up for Duolingo Max in his memory.
Nor could the company pass up the opportunity to mention the viral meme that confuses Duo with pop star Dua Lipa: We appreciate you respecting Dua Lipas privacy at this time, it wrote. (Dua Lipa herself responded to the news mournfully, posting on X: Til death duo part.)
Duolingo has fully committed to the bit, updating its X profile picture to an image of Duo with cartoonish Xs over his eyes. Meanwhile, over on TikTok, a video shows fellow Duolingo characters Lily and Zari solemnly carrying Duos coffin onto the bed of a pickup truck. Btw im deaf so i hope this is a sad song, the videos text overlay reads as the X-rated lyrics of the song Good Lookin by Dixon Dallas play.
Duos reputation was always tied to his parent companys relentless push notifications that guilt-tripped users into keeping up with their daily language practice. Bro spent his last days begging me to learn French . . . and I ignored him . . . , one X user posted under the announcement. I will never recover from this.
Over time, Duo evolved from a simple mascot into an internet-wide meme with his own lore (he once harassed Drake and appeared on Netflixs Squid Game). While the Duolingo owl received plenty of tongue-in-cheek dislike, few expected the company to actually kill him. Yet, thats exactly what they did. Duo now joins the ranks of fallen corporate icons like Twitters beloved blue bird (axed in 2023 after Elon Musk rebranded the platform as X) and Mr. Peanut (killed off by Planters in a 2020 Super Bowl commercial).
At the time of publication, theres been nothing more on why Duo is no more, and Duolingo did not immediately respond to Fast Companys request for comment. However, the official X account teased today, UPDATE: Officials have identified cause of death. More details to follow.
All Swedish schools and pre-schools will have to make plans to keep unauthorised people off their premises, the government said on Wednesday, as the country tries to come to terms with the worst school shooting in its history last week.
Ten people were shot dead at the Campus Risbergska school in Orebro, before the suspected perpetrator – identified by a Reuters source and Swedish media as Rickard Andersson, a 35-year-old Swedish recluse – turned a weapon on himself.
The attack has raised questions about whether security at Sweden’s schools needs to be improved. Unlike in many other countries, schools are generally seen as semi-public spaces and rarely have any controls on who can come and go.
Minister of Education Johan Pehrson told a news conference that all schools and pre-schools would have to have a plan for how to keep unauthorised people out.
“For example, it could involveentry registry, controls and a locking system with locked doors,” he said, but added that it was up to individual schools to work out what worked best for them.
The Campus Risbergska shooter entered the school with a hunting rifle and two shotguns in what witnesses have described as a “guitar-shaped box” before he started to shoot.
Marwa, who declined to give her full name, survived the attack and helped tend to a fellow student, but said she didn’t think she would go back to the school to finish her nursing training.
“I really don’t think so,” she told Reuters. “They need to do something. It’s really strange that a person can just walk in with weapons like that without anyone noticing.”
The government will also speed up legislation that would make it easier for schools to install surveillance cameras without seeking permission, and let personnel search bags.
Sweden’s right-wing government also said last week it would seek to tighten gun laws as the attacker appeared to have used several of his own licensed rifles.
Johan Ahlander, Reuters
Amid his dramatic reshaping of the federal government, President Donald Trump’s latest high-profile dismissal could become among his most consequential.
On Feb. 7, Trump fired Colleen Shogan from her role as Archivist of the United States, the head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and government official responsible for overseeing the preservationboth physical and digitaland promulgation of government records. Shogans dismissal marks the first time that a sitting president has fired the nations archivist since the position was established in the 1930s.
This evening, President Trump fired me. No cause or reason was cited, Shogan said in a statement on her LinkedIn at the time. It has been an honor serving as the 11th Archivist of the United States. I have zero regrets – I absolutely did my best every day for the National Archives and the American people.
The dismissal wasn’t exactly unexpected. The New York Times reports that Trump had grown to despise the agency for its role in alerting the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2022 to his alleged misappropriation and mishandling of classified documents at his Florida estate of Mar-a-Lago following his first term in officea case a federal judge dismissed in July of last year. (His ire extended to Shogan despite her not assuming the Archivist post until 2023, months after the agency alerted the DOJ.)
And Shogan wont be the last NARA official to get the axe: The president has reportedly in recent months drawn up a list of staff to fire in retaliation for their role in the classified documents investigation, according to Rolling Stone. (Shogan, NARA, and the White House did not respond to Fast Companys requests for comment.)
Trumps revenge tour appears to be expanding to every corner of the federal government. But unlike some of Trumps other high-profile firings, the dismissal of Shogan also has the potential to dramatically undermine the scaffolding of American democracy.
NARA does more than just collect, digitize, and maintain government records. As an independent agency within the executive branch, its responsible for, among other things, administering the Electoral College process by providing the official instructions for how the states transmit electors votes to Congress; overseeing the process of ratifying new Constitutional amendments; managing the document classification system and, in turn, the delicate balance between public transparency and national security; and publicizing the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, the two documents that codify rules and chronicle the daily goings-on, respectively, of the federal government.
If the U.S. Constitution is the core operating system of the U.S. government, the Archivist of the United States and NARA are the maintainers of the systems foundational codebase of legal and historical documents.
In a democracy, you need an apolitical, independent actor whose job is to do essential things like record, certify, and provide access [to documents] for public inspection, says Dominic Byrd-McDevitt, the director of community engagement at the Digital Public Library of America. Thats the reason the archivist administers things like the Electoral College and constitutional amendment process: In order for these processes to have legitimacy, NARA is required by law to certify certificates of ascertainment and ratification documents and make them available to the public for viewing.
NARAs critical role in controlling the official documents that are the lifeblood of American governance requires that the agency remain a neutral steward of the governments entire legal and regulatory regime. The statute regarding the office of the Archivist of the United States stipulates that the position be appointed without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office of Archivist.
But archivists and historians are already bracing for Trump to install political loyalists at the agency who will bend to his will. (Much as hes done elsewhere.) A partisan archivist could lead to biased (or outright malicious) decision-making when it comes to document access, preservation, and release; delay or block access to records in compliance with the President Records Act to protect political interests; or even, at the very worst, facilitate meddling with the Electoral College or federal regulations in the service of maintaining power. Its not so hard, in this context, to imagine a world where someone deliberately destroys official records in order to obstruct an investigation into potentially illegal government activities. And which recent president has tried to interfere with the Electoral College, destroy documents, and wipe out government regulations wholesale?
All of these factors not only create a precedent for future political exploitation by subsequent administrations, but threaten to undermine the U.S. governments historical integrity and democratic accountability. Bureaucracies maintain their institutional legitimacy by consistently applying rules, regulations, and procedures, and injecting potential political malfeasance into the organization tasked with maintaining those rules means corrupting the very mechanisms that define the shape and scope of American governance.
Indeed, Trump already appears to have broken the law in his firing of Shogan. In a letter addressed to Trump regarding Shogans dismissal published on Feb. 10, the American Historical Association (AHA), the oldest professional organization for historians in the United States, noted that the president was legally compelled to, in the words of Title 44 of the U.S. Code, communicate the reasons for any such removal to each House of the Congress. Whether Trump decides to actually do so may signal whats ahead of the agency.
The American Historical Association awaits the White Houses compliance with the law by informing Congress of the reasons for Dr. Shogans dismissal, wrote AHA executive director James Grossman. Democracy rests on the rule of law. And the history of the United States rests on unfettered access to the archival record.
Without additional action from Trump, Deputy Archivist (and career NARA staffer) William Bosanko will now execute the Shogans responsibilities, a temporary reprieve for those concerned about the institutions integrity. But with Secretary of State Marco Rubio rumored to be assuming control of the agency as its acting head (a move that Byrd-McDevitt points out would be illegal) and the rest of the chaos currently roiling the federal government, it is unlikely that NARA and its workforce will emerge unscathed.
As it happens, Byrd-McDevitt held the title of Digital Content Specialist at NARA from 2011 to 2019. I worked there: They are civil servants doing their jobs, he says. That shouldnt put a target on their back.
Some Black consumers may be breaking up with Target this February.
It all started late last month, when the retailer announced that it was ending its diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The move drew widespread rebuke from social justice organizers, including New Birth Missionary Baptist Church Pastor Dr. Jamal Bryant. Although Target said one set of its racial-equity initiatives had already been scheduled to conclude, the timing was notable: The move came just days after the White House called for a federal DEI ban, and as several other companies took similar actions.
Beyond renaming its supplier diversity team now called supplier engagement and ending diversity-focused surveys, Target hasnt said what the change will mean for the many Black entrepreneurs who sell everything from coffee to sunscreen on its shelves. The webpage for the retailers Black Beyond Measure initiative, which highlights dozens of Black-founded brands and connects business owners to a program designed to democratize access to retail education, remains active.
But Targets critics, including Minneapolis-based civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, view the move as a surrender to the new presidential administrations attack on equity programs. In a news conference outside Targets Minnesota headquarters on Jan. 30, 2025, Armstrong called for a nationwide boycott of the store to begin on the first day of Black History Month.
While many social media users posted in support of the boycott, some Black founders whose brands are stocked by Target and there are dozens of them have been more conflicted. Tabitha Brown, whose products can be found in various aisles, from books to cooking appliances, asked customers to reconsider boycotting Target. Withholding their dollars, Brown insisted, will hurt Black businesses far more than the corporations that sell their products.
This request for restraint garnered a mixed response on social media. Some Black consumers accused Black business owners of selling out the very racial community that contributed to their success.
So, why would a Black business owner ask consumers to patronize a retailer that signaled it doesnt care about Black customers? And how did something as mundane as where people buy toilet paper and shampoo become a litmus test for racial consciousness in the first place?
Black consumers and the fight for dignity
The marketplace has long been a battleground where Black Americans have sought to assert their citizenship. Most of the nations biggest household brands didnt begin to take African American consumers seriously until after World War II. Before that shift, advertisements and product packaging were more likely to feature degrading Black caricatures to appeal to white shoppers, than to address Black consumers directly.
This segregated commercial landscape reinforced the belief among some community members that Black people would not be taken seriously as citizens until they were taken seriously as consumers. They would need to vote with their dollars, patronizing only those brands and retailers that respected them.
In my research on marketing campaigns aimed at Black women, Ive examined how the struggle for consumer citizenship complicated the dynamic between Black entrepreneurs and consumers. On the one hand, businesses have long leveraged Black ownership as a unique selling proposition in and of itself, urging shoppers to view Black brand loyalty as a path to collective racial progress.
Unlike their larger competitors, Black entrepreneurs relied on their racial community to stay afloat. Patronizing African American businesses could therefore be framed as a racial duty. Conversely, as African American advertising pioneers made clear, recognition from big brands was a political victory of sorts because it signaled that Black dollars were just as valuable as anyone elses.
Competing for Black dollars
Corporate attention to Black consumers ebbs and flows in a cycle that is especially noticeable in the beauty and personal care industry. In seasons of limited competition for African American customers, entrepreneurs typically thrive, even while they struggle to meet the capital demands of a growing brand. Their success, however, beckons larger corporations, which then seek to capitalize on consumer niches they previously ignored.
Two common approaches that mass market brands pursue to compete for Black dollars include acquiring smaller, established Black brands and developing their own niche products. Large corporations deployed both strategies during a period of intense expansion into the beauty market of the 1980s.
Black owners tried to stave off their competition by creating a special emblem that alerted shoppers to their authenticity. Then, as now, social justice organizations, such as Rev. Jesse Jacksons Operation PUSH, also initiated boycotts and urged Black consumers not to choose lipstick over liberation.
Nevertheless, many Black entrepreneurs sold their brands, and by 1986 nearly half of the Black hair care market was no longer Black-owned.
A linked fate
Parsing winners and losers within the world of Black enterprise is as difficult now as it was in earlier periods. African American business owners often possess a cultural consciousness that distinguishes their brands, even when they cant match the resources of larger competitors. And as they figure out how to survive an uneven playing field, Black entrepreneurs sometimes face accusations of betraying their racial community.
In a market governed by the law of supply and demand, Black consumers benefit from increased competition. Yet, racial loyalty sometimes asks that they eschew these benefits for the sake of keeping Black dollars in Black hands.
Four years ago, when Target launched its Black Beyond Measure funding initiative, it seemed that the retailer had struck a rare balance in supporting Black brands and their customers. In addition to curating a collection of products to lure shoppers, Target used the campaign as an opportunity to position entrepreneurs to flourish well beyond Black History Month.
Now, as Black consumers and business owners weigh varying responses to the retailers decision to reverse their commitment to DEI values, one question endures: Do Black dollars matter?
Timeka N. Tounsel is an associate professor of Black studies in communication at the University of Washington.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking to pause its high-profile lawsuit against the cryptocurrency exchange Binance as the regulator tries to present itself as more crypto-friendly under a new administration.
Binance and the SEC filed a joint motion Monday asking for a 60-day stay in a lawsuit the regulator filed with significant fanfare two years ago under its previous chairman, Gary Gensler.
Mondays filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said the SEC approached Binance asking for the pause. The regulator said the work of a new crypto task force launched by Acting Chairman Mark Uyeda that’s supposed to improve ties to the crypto industry may impact and facilitate the potential resolution of this case.
The filing is the first tangible action in existing enforcement actions that recognizes a change in direction of the agency, said Carol Goforth, a distinguished professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
Binance is the worlds largest cryptocurrency exchange a digital marketplace where customers can buy, sell and store different types of crypto and the SECs lawsuit drew considerable attention when first filed.
Gensler said in a statement at the time that Binance and its founder, Changpeng Zhao, had engaged in an extensive web of deception while the SECs X account posted a graphic highlighting a key piece of evidence of alleged wrongdoing: a quote from Binances chief compliance officer saying to another employee in 2018, We are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro.
In a separate case, Binance later agreed to pay a roughly $4 billion settlement and Zhao pleaded guilty to a felony related to his failure to prevent money laundering on the platform.
A key issue facing the cryptocurrency industry is whether certain digital assets should be regulated as securities a position that the SEC under Gensler supported while many in the crypto industry are opposed.
Cryptocurrencies are a kind of electronic cash that have moved from the financial fringes to the mainstream in rapid fits and starts, despite being marred by scandals and market meltdowns.
The SEC has targeted crypto exchanges like Binance, Coinbase and others for allegedly operating unregistered securities exchanges. That scrutiny came after the high-profile meltdown of FTX, the exchange founded by disgraced crypto mogul Sam Bankman-Fried.
The industry said it was unfairly treated by the Biden administration, and Gensler in particular, and spent heavily to help Trump and Republicans in the last election. Trump and GOP lawmakers have signaled their eagerness to help the crypto industry with friendly legislation and light-touch regulations.
Uyeda launched the new crypto task force last month, saying the agency needed a reset in its approach to crypto.
To date, the SEC has relied primarily on enforcement actions to regulate crypto retroactively and reactively, often adopting novel and untested legal interpretations along the way, the agency said in announcing the task force. Clarity regarding who must register, and practical solutions for those seeking to register, have been elusive.
Legal experts said the pause in the Binance case could indicate similar changes in the SECs ongoing legal action against other crypto exchanges.
I would expect that all of these cases will be either dismissed outright or settled on very favorable terms to the defendants, said James Murphy, a securities law expert.
That’s bad news, said Corey Frayer, a former SEC official who recently left the agency.
The SEC delaying what appears to be a slam dunk case in Binance while welcoming cryptos return to its pre-FTX days is a bad omen for any other ongoing crypto litigation, he said.
In a statement, Binance said the SECs case has always been without merit and praised Uyeda for his thoughtful approach to ensuring digital assets receive the appropriate legislative and regulatory focus in this new, golden era of blockchain in the U.S. and around the world.
Alan Suderman, AP business writer
Japanese technology company SoftBank Group Corp. reported a 369.2 billion yen ($2.4 billion) loss for the fiscal third quarter as it racked up red ink from its Vision Fund investments.That’s compared to a 950 billion yen profit in October-December 2023.Quarterly sales rose 3% from the previous year to 1.83 trillion yen ($11.9 billion), the Tokyo-based company said Wednesday.The report comes barely a month after Masayoshi Son, the founder and chief executive, appeared with President Donald Trump in Washington, as well as with Sam Altman of OpenAI and Larry Ellison of Oracle, to announce an investment of up to $500 billion into an artificial intelligence project called Stargate.Son has repeatedly said the company is banking on a future in artificial intelligence.SoftBank Group invests in an array of companies that it sees as holding long-term potential, including unlisted upstarts, so its financial performance tends to swing wildly.For the nine months of this fiscal year through December, it recorded a profit of 636 billion yen ($4 billion), a reversal from a loss of 459 billion for the previous year.Investment gains were recorded in its holdings in Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba; Coupang, a South Korean retailer based in the U.S.; a mobility service provider DiDi Global and Grab Holdings, a Singaporean technology company, while improved sales came in its British semiconductor company Arm’s business.Some of the investment gains from the earlier months of this fiscal year were erased in the latest quarter. The company does not issue an annual forecast.
Yuri Kageyama is on Theads: https://www.threads.net/@yurikageyama
Yuri Kageyama, AP Business Writer
