Trump’s ‘shock and awe’ foreign policy achieved a breakthrough in Gaza – but is it sustainable?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lester Munson, Non-Resident Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

US President Donald Trump will visit Israel and Egypt this week to oversee the initial implementation of his Gaza peace agreement, which many hope will permanently end the two-year war in the strip.

Should the peace hold, the Gaza accord will be Trump’s greatest foreign policy achievement, even surpassing the Abraham Accords of his first term that normalised relations between Israel and several Arab countries.

Given the speed with which the Trump administration has helped to negotiate the ceasefire, it is an opportune moment to assess Trump’s frenetic foreign policy at the start of his second presidential term.

The “Trump Doctrine” – the unconventional, high-energy and fast-moving approach to world affairs now pursued by the United States – has had some significant achievements, most notably in Gaza. But are these breakthroughs sustainable, and can his foreign policy approach be effective with larger geostrategic challenges?

A leaner decision-making structure

One way the Trump administration’s approach is different from previous administrations – including Trump 1.0 – is in his leaner organisation, which is more capable of implementing quick action.

Trump has revamped the national security decision-making structure in surprising ways. His secretary of state, Marco Rubio, now serves concurrently as his national security adviser. Rubio has also reduced the staff of the National Security Council from around 350 to about 150, which is still larger than many of Trump’s predecessors before Barack Obama.

There have been some missteps. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Waltz, tried to accommodate his need for speedy decision-making by establishing group chats on the Signal app for the small group of agency heads and senior advisers who advise Trump. This rightfully caused concerns about the security of classified information – especially after Waltz mistakenly added a journalist to a chat group – and he was subsequently ousted.

With a much smaller staff now, Rubio is implementing a more sustainable method for the president to communicate with his top advisers, mostly through Rubio himself and Trump’s powerful chief of staff, Susie Wiles.

Rubio has also led a top-down revamp of the bureaucratic foreign policy structures. Dozens of offices were eliminated, and hundreds of career professionals were laid off. Numerous political appointments, including ambassadorships, remain unfilled.

Many bureaus are now headed not by Senate-confirmed assistant secretaries, but by career foreign and civil service “senior bureau officials”. This keeps the number of politically appointed policymakers rather small – mostly in Rubio’s direct orbit – while keeping professional “implementers” in key positions to execute policy.

A reliance on special envoys

To set the stage for his own deal-making, Trump also uses his longtime friend and multipurpose envoy, Steve Witkoff, for the highest-level conversations. Without any Senate confirmation, Witkoff has become Trump’s most trusted voice in Ukraine, Gaza and several other foreign policy negotiations.

Massad Boulos, another unconfirmed Trump envoy, conducts second-tier negotiations, mostly in Africa but also parts of the Middle East.

Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, played a key role in the recent Gaza accord as well. This has raised questions of conflicts of interest. However, Trump’s emphasis on deal-oriented businessmen in diplomatic roles is intentional.

The approach appears to be very welcome in some quarters, particularly in the Middle East, where conventional diplomacy was fraught with much historical baggage.

A ‘shock and awe’ approach

On top of all this, of course, is Trump’s style and showmanship.

His most controversial statements – for example, demanding US ownership of Greenland – may seem absurd and offensive at first. However, there are genuine national security concerns over China’s role in the Arctic and the possibility an independent Greenland might serve as a wedge in a critical region. From this standpoint, establishing some US control over Greenland’s foreign policy is an entirely rational proposition.

What is unique to Trump is the pace, breadth and intensity of his personal diplomacy.

Trump’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a case in point. While Trump embraces Netanyahu in public and green-lights all of Israel’s military actions, he’s willing to say no to the Israeli leader in private. For example, Trump intervened to prevent Israel from annexing the West Bank immediately before the Gaza breakthrough.

In addition, Trump’s personal charm offensive with Arab leaders in the region – his first major foreign trip after Pope Francis’ funeral was to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – established a coalition to pressure Hamas to say yes to the deal.

It is a “shock and awe” diplomatic approach: everything, everywhere, all at once. Previous agreements and norms (including those set by Trump himself) are downplayed or discarded in favour of action in the moment.

Is there a longer-term vision?

Of course, there are downsides to the Trump approach. The past cannot be ignored, especially in the Middle East. And many previous agreements and norms were there for a reason – they worked, and they helped stabilise otherwise chaotic situations.
It very much remains to be seen whether Trump’s approach can lead to a long-term solution in Gaza. Many critics have pointed out the vagueness in his 20-point peace plan, which could cause it to fall apart at any moment.

It is not unusual for a second-term American president like Trump to focus on foreign policy, where Congress has a highly limited role and the president has wide latitude. But American presidents usually focus on achieving one big thing. Think Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran or George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq.

Today, in addition to the Gaza accord, Trump is pursuing separate diplomatic deals with all four major American adversaries: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

The logic of this is to put direct stress on the alliance of bad actors. Does Chinese leader Xi Jinping trust Russian President Vladimir Putin enough to resist Trump’s entreaties, and vice versa? How much are Russia and China worried about North Korean leader Kim Jong Un cutting a deal with Washington?

The true test of the Trump Doctrine will not be the success of the Gaza accord, but whether he can build on it to drive the West’s adversaries – mainly China and Russia – apart from each other and into weaker strategic positions.

The Conversation

Lester Munson receives funding from the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He is affiliated with BGR Group, a Washington DC governmental affairs firm and was previously Republican staff in the US Congress and in the George W. Bush administration.

ref. Trump’s ‘shock and awe’ foreign policy achieved a breakthrough in Gaza – but is it sustainable? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-shock-and-awe-foreign-policy-achieved-a-breakthrough-in-gaza-but-is-it-sustainable-267316

Israelis are hailing Trump as Cyrus returned – but who was Cyrus the Great, anyway?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Edwell, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Macquarie University

With both parties agreeing to terms, the first stages of a peace plan in Gaza are in motion. US President Donald Trump is credited (especially in Israel and the US) with having played a vital role in this development.

But why have banners appeared in Israel depicting Trump with the caption “Cyrus the Great is alive”?

Who was Cyrus and what is he renowned for?

Founder of the Achaemenid Persian empire

Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Achaemenid Persian empire (550 BCE to 330 BCE).

Under Cyrus and his successors, the Persian empire stretched across a vast array of territories, including Iran, Mesopotamia (which includes parts of modern-day Turkey, Syria and Iraq), Egypt, Asia Minor (which is mostly modern-day Turkey) and Central Asia.

A key moment in this imperial expansion was Cyrus’ capture of Babylon and its surrounding territory, Babylonia, (mostly in modern-day Iraq) in 539 BCE.

The Babylonian king, Nabonidus, controlled large sections of Mesopotamia and northern Arabia. A surviving clay tablet called the Nabonidus chronicle outlines the alienation of his subjects. Unpopular religious reforms and his long absences from Babylon were among the grievances.

Cuneiform tablet with part of the Nabonidus Chronicle (556-530s BC)
A clay tablet called the Nabonidus chronicle describes Nabonidus’ despotic tendencies.
© The Trustees of the British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA

Soon after he defeated Nabonidus, Cyrus issued a decree freeing captive Jews (and others) in Babylon.

A comparatively humane approach to governing

Nebuchadnezzar II, king of the Babylonian empire from 605–562 BCE, had captured the kingdom of Judah (in modern-day Israel and Palestinian territories) in 587 BCE.

Due to rebellions, he ransacked Jerusalem and deported thousands of Jews to Babylon.

When Cyrus freed the Babylonian Jewish exiles almost 50 years later, many returned to Judah.

The biblical book of Ezra records the decree.

Cyrus, according to this version of the story, had been commanded by God to rebuild a temple at Jerusalem that Nebuchadnezzar II had destroyed. The decree released the Jewish exiles from Babylon to return to Jerusalem and rebuild it.

In the Old Testament book of Isaiah, Cyrus was chosen by God to free the Jews of Babylon.

For this reason, Cyrus became (and remains) a legendary figure in Jewish history, though he was not Jewish himself. He was more likely a devotee of Zoroastrianism, which was fervently embraced by his successors, including Darius I (who ruled 522-486 BCE).

An ancient clay tablet from Babylon suggests Cyrus’ occupation of Babylon was peaceful. It confirms the return of exiles, but not specifically Jewish ones. Known today as the “Cyrus cylinder”, it is sometimes referred to as an ancient declaration of human rights. A replica of the tablet is on permanent display at the UN headquarters in New York.

Cyrus was remembered in antiquity for what, at the time, was a comparatively humane approach to governing.

The Greek writer Xenophon, who wrote the Cyropedia (The Education of Cyrus) in about 370 BCE, noted that:

subjects he cared for and cherished as a father might care for his children, and they who came beneath his rule reverenced him like a father.

The benevolent and altruistic reputation of Cyrus was developed in his own reign and later. As one of history’s “winners”, Cyrus would be well-pleased with the propaganda that has continued to develop about his reign.

Conquest and wealth

Cyrus was, of course, a great warrior and strategist. One of his most famous conquests was the kingdom of Lydia (modern southwest Turkey) in about 546 BCE. Its king, Croesus, was known for his incredible wealth.

Cyrus initially ordered Croesus to be burned alive. But when the god Apollo sent a rain storm, Croesus was spared, according to the 5th century BCE Greek historian Herodotus. He then became a trusted advisor of Cyrus, adding to the Persian king’s reputation for benevolence.

Cyrus was also known for large-scale construction projects. The most famous was the palace complex at his capital, Pasargadae (modern southern Iran).

The palace and other buildings were set in the midst of magnificent paradise gardens.

Today, the most intact building at Pasargadae is the tomb of Cyrus. It has become a powerful symbol of Iranian and Persian nationalism. The legacy of Cyrus is still significant in Iran today.

So, the banners comparing Trump to Cyrus appear to be drawing on the story of Cyrus’ role in freeing Jewish captives. In this framing, Gaza is cast as Babylon and Trump as the new Cyrus.

One wonders what Cyrus the Great would think of the comparison.

The Conversation

Peter Edwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

ref. Israelis are hailing Trump as Cyrus returned – but who was Cyrus the Great, anyway? – https://theconversation.com/israelis-are-hailing-trump-as-cyrus-returned-but-who-was-cyrus-the-great-anyway-267312

For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, Deputy Director, Engagement and Impact, The ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Australian National University

Massimo Valicchia/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Global warming from Woodside’s massive Scarborough gas project off Western Australia would lead to 484 additional heat-related deaths in Europe alone this century, and kill about 16 million additional corals on the Great Barrier Reef during each future mass bleaching event, our new research has revealed.

The findings were made possible by a robust, well-established formula that can determine the extent to which an individual fossil fuel project will warm the planet. The results can be used to calculate the subsequent harms to society and nature.

The results close a fundamental gap between science and decision-making about fossil fuel projects. They also challenge claims by proponents that climate risks posed by a fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified.

Each new investment in coal and gas, such as the Scarborough project, can now be linked to harmful effects both today and in the future. It means decision-makers can properly assess the range of risks a project poses to humanity and the planet, before deciding if it should proceed.

A gas ship moored at a wharf off the Pilbara coast.
Each new investment in coal and gas extraction can now be linked to harmful effects.
Shutterstock

Every tonne of CO₂ matters

Scientists know every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions makes global warming worse.

But proponents of new fossil fuel projects in Australia routinely say their future greenhouse gas emissions are negligible compared to the scale of global emissions, or say the effects of these emissions on global warming can’t be measured.

The Scarborough project is approved for development and is expected to produce gas from next year. Located off WA, it includes wells connected by a 430km pipeline to an onshore processing facility. The gas will be liquefied and burned for energy, both in Australia and overseas. Production is expected to last more than 30 years. When natural gas is burned, more than 99% of it converts to CO₂.

Woodside – in its own evaluation of the Scarborough gas project – claimed:

it is not possible to link GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from Scarborough with climate change or any particular climate-related impacts given the estimated […] emissions associated with Scarborough are negligible in the context of existing and future predicted global GHG concentrations.

But what if there was a way to measure the harms? That’s the question our research set out to answer.

A method already exists to directly link global emissions to the climate warming they cause. It uses scientific understanding of Earth’s systems, direct observations and climate model simulations.

According to the IPCC, every 1,000 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions causes about 0.45°C of additional global warming. This arithmetic forms the basis for calculating how much more CO₂ humanity can emit to keep warming within the Paris Agreement goals.

But decisions about future emissions are not made at the global scale. Instead, Earth’s climate trajectory will be determined by the aggregation of decisions on many individual projects.

That’s why our research extended the IPCC method to the level of individual projects – an approach that we illustrate using the Scarborough gas project.

Scarborough’s harms laid bare

Over its lifetime, the Scarborough project is expected to emit 876 million tonnes of CO₂.

We estimate these emissions will cause 0.00039°C of additional global warming. Estimates such as these are typically expressed as a range, alongside a measure of confidence in the projection. In this case, there is a 66–100% likelihood that the Scarborough project will cause additional global warming of between 0.00024°C and 0.00055°C.

This additional warming might seem small – but it will cause tangible damage.

The human cost of global warming can be quantified by considering how many people will be left outside the “human climate niche” – in other words, the climate conditions in which societies have historically thrived.

We calculated that the additional warming from the Scarborough project will expose 516,000 people globally to a local climate that’s beyond the hot extreme of the human climate niche. We drilled down into specific impacts in Europe, where suitable health data was available across 854 cities. Our best estimate is that this project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century.

A girl and a woman stand in front of a giant fan.
The project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century.
Antonio Masiello/Getty Images

And what about harm to nature? Using research into how accumulated exposure to heat affects coral reefs, we found about 16 million corals on the Great Barrier Reef would be lost in each new mass bleaching. The existential threat to the Great Barrier Reef from human-caused global warming is already being realised. Additional warming instigated by new fossil fuel projects will ratchet up pressure on this natural wonder.

As climate change worsens, countries are seeking to slash emissions to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement. So, we looked at the impact of Scarborough’s emissions on Australia’s climate targets.

We calculated that by 2049, the anticipated emissions from the Scarborough project alone – from production, processing and domestic use – will comprise 49% of Australia’s entire annual CO₂ emissions budget under our commitment to net-zero by 2050.

Beyond the 2050 deadline, all emissions from the Scarborough project would require technologies to permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Achieving that would require a massive scale-up of current technologies. It would be more prudent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions where possible.

‘Negligible’ impacts? Hardly

Our findings mean the best-available scientific evidence can now be used by companies, governments and regulators when deciding if a fossil fuel project will proceed.

Crucially, it is no longer defensible for companies proposing new or extended fossil fuel projects to claim the climate harms will be negligible. Our research shows the harms are, in fact, tangible and quantifiable – and no project is too small to matter.


In response to issues raised in this article, a spokesperson for Woodside said:

Woodside is committed to playing a role in the energy transition. The Scarborough reservoir contains less than 0.1% carbon dioxide. Combined with processing design efficiencies at the offshore floating production unit and onshore Pluto Train 2, the project is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets.

We will reduce the Scarborough Energy Project’s direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations. Further information on how this is being achieved is included in the Scarborough Offshore Project Proposal, sections 4.5.4.1 and 7.1.3 and in approved Australian Government environment plans, available on the regulator’s website.

A report prepared by consultancy ACIL Allen has found that Woodside’s Scarborough Energy Project is expected to generate an estimated A$52.8 billion in taxation and royalty payments, boost GDP by billions of dollars between 2024 and 2056 and employ 3,200 people during peak construction in Western Australia.

The Conversation

Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Andrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship and Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather) and the National Environmental Science Program.

Nicola Maher receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

ref. For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project – https://theconversation.com/for-the-first-time-we-linked-a-new-fossil-fuel-project-to-hundreds-of-deaths-heres-the-impact-of-woodsides-scarborough-gas-project-266060

‘Extremely hostile’: Trump lashes China over trade controls but there may be a silver lining

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Marina Yue Zhang, Associate Professor, Technology and Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The trade dispute between the United States and China has resumed. US President Donald Trump lashed out at the weekend at Beijing’s planned tightening of restrictions over crucial rare-earth minerals.

In response, Trump has threatened 100% tariffs on Chinese imports.

But with the higher tariff rate not due to start until November 1, and the Chinese controls on December 1, there is still time for negotiation.

This is no longer a trade dispute; it has escalated into a race for control over supply chains, and the rules that govern global trade.

For Australia, this provides an opening to build capacity at home in minerals refining and rare-earths processing. But we also need to keep access to our biggest market – China.

A long-running battle

Since 2018, the US has sought to choke off China’s access to semiconductors and chipmaking tools by restricting exports.

China last week tightened its export controls on rare earth minerals that are essential for the technology, automotive and defence industries. Foreign companies now need permission to export products that derive as little as 0.1% of their value from China-sourced rare earths.

Rare earths are essential to many modern technologies. They enable high-performance magnets for EVs and wind turbines, lasers in advanced weapons, and the polishing of semiconductor wafers. An F-35 fighter jet contains about 417 kilograms of rare earths.

By targeting inputs rather than finished goods, China extends its reach across production lines in any foreign factories that use Chinese rare earths in chips (including AI), automotive, defence and consumer electronics.

A part of US President Donald Trump's social media post announcing new tariffs on China.
A part of US President Donald Trump’s social media post announcing new tariffs on China.

Who holds the upper hand: chips or rare earths?

The US plan is simple: control the key tools and software for making top-end semiconductor chips so China can’t move as fast on cutting-edge technology.

Under that pressure, China is filling the gaps. It’s far more self-sufficient in chips than ten years ago. It now makes more of its own tools and software, and produces “good-enough” chips for cars, factories and gadgets to withstand US sanctions.

Rare earths aren’t literally “rare”; their value lies in complex, costly and polluting separation and purification processes. China has cornered the industry, helped by industry policies and subsidies. China accounts for 60–70% of all mining and more than 90% of rare earths refining.

Its dominance reflects decades-long investment, scale and an early willingness to bear heavy environmental costs. Building a China-free supply chain will take years, even if Western countries can coordinate smoothly.

A window for Australia?

Australia is seen as a potential beneficiary. As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares to meet Trump on October 20 in Washington, many argue the rare-earths clash offers a diplomatic opening.

Trade Minister Don Farrell says Australia is a reliable supplier that can “provide alternatives to the rest of the world”. Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, has made the same case.

The logic seems compelling: leverage Australia’s mineral wealth for strategic gain with its closest security partner. But that narrative is simplistic. It risks drifting from industrial and economic reality.

The first hard truth is that Australia has the resources, but doesn’t control the market. It is a top-five producer of 14 minerals, including lithium, cobalt and rare earths, yet it doesn’t dominate any of them. Australia’s strength is in mining and extraction, rather than processing.

Here lies the strategic paradox: Australia ships the majority of its minerals to China for processing that turns ore into high-purity metals and chemicals. Building alternative, China-free supply chains to reduce US reliance on China would decouple Australia from its main customer for raw materials.

Demand from the defence sector is not enough. The US Department of Defense accounts for less than 5% of global demand for most critical minerals.

The real driver is the heavy demand from clean energy and advanced technology, including EVs, batteries and solar. China commands those markets, creating a closed-loop ecosystem that pulls in Australia’s materials and exports finished goods. Recreating that integrated system in five to ten years, after Beijing spent decades building it, is wishful thinking.

There will be no simple winner

The US restrictions on chips and the Chinese controls over rare earths are twin levers in the contest between two great powers. Each wants to lead in technology – and to set the rules over global supply chains.

We’ve entered a period where control of a few key inputs, tools and routes gives countries leverage. Each side is probing those “chokepoints” in the other’s supply chains for technology and materials – and using them as weapons. In the latest stand-off, Trump has floated export controls on Boeing parts to China. Chinese airlines are major Boeing customers, so any parts disruption would hit China’s aviation sector hard.

There will be no simple winner. Countries and firms are being pulled into two parallel systems: one centred on US chip expertise, the other on China’s materials power. This is not a clean break. It will be messier, costlier and less efficient, where political risk often outweighs commercial logic.

The question for Australia is not how fast it can build, but how well it balances security aims with market realities.

The Conversation

Marina Yue Zhang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. ‘Extremely hostile’: Trump lashes China over trade controls but there may be a silver lining – https://theconversation.com/extremely-hostile-trump-lashes-china-over-trade-controls-but-there-may-be-a-silver-lining-267294

Supreme Court redistricting ruling could upend decades of voting rights law – and tilt the balance of power in Washington

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sam D. Hayes, Assistant professor of politics and policy, Simmons University

Black Louisiana voters and civil rights advocates ask U.S. Supreme Court justices to uphold a fair and representative congressional map in Louisiana v. Callais on March 24, 2025. Jemal Countess/Getty Images

On Oct. 15, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in one of the most anticipated cases of the 2025-2026 term, Louisiana v. Callais, with major implications for the Voting Rights Act, racial representation and Democratic Party power in congress.

The central question in the case is to what extent race can, or must, be used when congressional districts are redrawn. Plaintiffs are challenging whether the longstanding interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires protection of minority voting power in redistricting, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that individuals should be treated the same by the law.

In short, the plaintiffs argue that the state of Louisiana’s use of race to make a second Black-majority district is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

This is the second time that the court will hear oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais after no decision was reached last term. From my perspective as a scholar of U.S. federal courts and electoral systems, this case represents the collision of decades of Supreme Court decisions on race, redistricting and the Voting Rights Act.

Long legal battle

To understand the stakes of the current case, it’s important to know what the Voting Rights Act does. Initially passed in 1965, the act helped end decades of racially discriminatory voting laws by providing federal enforcement of voting rights.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids discrimination by states in relation to voting rights and has been used for decades to challenge redistricting plans.

The current case has its roots in the redistricting of Louisiana’s congressional districts following the 2020 Census. States are required to redraw districts each decade based on new population data. Louisiana lawmakers redrew the state’s six congressional districts without major changes in 2022.

Police smashing marchers on a street with billy clubs.
State troopers in Selma, Ala., swing billy clubs on March 7, 1965, to break up a march by advocates for Black Americans’ voting rights.
AP Photo, File

Soon after the state redistricted, a group of Black voters challenged the map in federal court as a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs argued that the new map was discriminatory because the voting power of Black citizens in the state was being illegally diluted. The state’s population was 31% Black, but only one of the six districts featured a majority-Black population.

The federal courts in 2022 sided with the plaintiffs’ claim that the plan did violate the Voting Rights Act and ordered the state legislature to redraw the congressional plan with a second Black-majority district.

The judges relied on an interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act from a 1986 Supreme Court decision in the case known as Thornburg v. Gingles. Under this interpretation, Section 2’s nondiscrimination requirement means that congressional districts must be drawn in a way that allows large, politically cohesive and compact racial minorities to be able to elect representatives of their choice.

In 2023, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a similar racial gerrymandering case in Alabama.

Louisiana lawmakers redraw districts

Following the court order, the Louisiana state legislature passed Senate Bill 8 in January 2024, redrawing the congressional map and creating two districts where Black voters composed a substantial portion of the electorate in compliance with the Gingles ruling. This map was used in the 2024 congressional election and both Black-majority districts elected Democrats, while the other four districts elected Republicans.

These new congressional districts from Senate Bill 8 were challenged by a group of white voters in 2024 in a set of cases that became Louisiana v. Callais.

The plaintiffs argued that the Louisiana legislature’s drawing of districts based on race in Senate Bill 8 was in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which requires equal treatment of individuals by the government, and the 15th Amendment, which forbids denying the right to vote based on race.

Essentially, the plaintiffs claimed that the courts’ interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional and that the use of race to create a majority-minority district is itself discriminatory. Similar arguments about the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause were also the basis of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

In 2024, a three-judge district court sided with the white plaintiffs in Louisiana v. Callais, with a 2-1 decision. The Black plaintiffs from the original case, and the state of Louisiana, appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The court originally heard the case at the end of the 2024-2025 term before ordering the case re-argued for 2025-2026.

A large, white building with a tall tower in the middle.
The Louisiana state Capitol in Baton Rouge.
AP Photo/Stephen Smith, File

High stakes and significant precedent

If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the lower court decision in Louisiana v. Callais, deciding that Louisiana’s congressional districts are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, it will have substantial impacts on minority representation. The decision would upend decades of precedent for Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

For 39 years, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has required redistricting institutions to consider racial and ethnic minority representation when devising congressional districts. Majority-minority districting is required when a state has large, compact and cohesive minority communities. Historically, some states have redistricted minority communities in ways that dilute their voting power, such as “cracking” a community into multiple districts where they compose a small percentage of the electorate.

Section 2 also provides voters and residents with a legal tool that has been used to challenge districts as discriminatory. Many voters and groups have used Section 2 successfully to challenge redistricting plans.

Section 2 has been the main legal tool for challenging racial discrimination in redistricting for the past decade. In 2013, the Supreme Court effectively ended the other major component of the Voting Rights Act, the preclearance provision, which required certain states to have changes to their elections laws approved by the federal government, including redistricting.

If the court overrules the current interpretation of Section 2, it would limit the legality of using race in redistricting, end requirements for majority-minority districts and eliminate the most common way to challenge discriminatory districting.

Additionally, because of the strong relationship between many minority communities and the Democratic party, the court’s decision has major implications for partisan control of the House of Representatives.

If Section 2 no longer required majority-minority districts, then Republicans could use the ruling to redraw congressional districts across the country to benefit their party. Politico reported that Democrats could lose as many as 19 House seats if the Supreme Court sides with the lower court.

Recent Supreme Court precedent gives conflicting signals as to how it will decide this case.

In 2023, the court rejected a challenge to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act related to Alabama’s congressional districts. In 2024, the court overruled a lower court’s finding of racial vote dilution in South Carolina.

The Conversation

Sam D. Hayes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Supreme Court redistricting ruling could upend decades of voting rights law – and tilt the balance of power in Washington – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-redistricting-ruling-could-upend-decades-of-voting-rights-law-and-tilt-the-balance-of-power-in-washington-267269

Can you catch shingles? A GP explains what people get wrong about this common virus

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Baumgardt, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol

ThalesAntonio/Shutterstock

The idea that you can “catch” shingles is one of the more common misconceptions I hear from patients who arrive worried they’ve got it. Often, they’ve recently been near a child with chickenpox or someone else with shingles, and are understandably anxious they’ve picked it up.

As a GP, I encounter this misunderstanding all the time. In fact, a study from my own University of Bristol found that while most patients had heard of shingles, few actually understood what it is.

Shingles isn’t something you catch from someone else. It’s the reactivation of a virus already inside your body: the varicella zoster virus, the same one that causes chickenpox. After you recover from chickenpox, the virus doesn’t leave; it hides in the nerve cells that supply sensation to your skin, lying dormant for years, sometimes decades. Shingles is what happens when that virus “wakes up”.




Read more:
Chickenpox vaccine recommended for NHS – here’s why a jab is better than getting the disease


When it reactivates, it causes clusters of small, fluid-filled blisters known as vesicles. Before the rash appears, people can feel tingling, burning or pain in one area of the body – sometimes two or three days beforehand. The skin can become unusually sensitive, and you might feel generally tired, feverish or unwell.

Shingles is common, affecting about one in 25 people. It tends to follow a characteristic pattern. The rash usually appears in a strip or band on one side of the body, corresponding to a dermatome (an area of skin served by one spinal nerve). It’s rare for shingles to appear on both sides of the body.

The blisters eventually burst, scab over and heal within three to four weeks, sometimes leaving small scars. Until each blister has crusted, a person with shingles is considered infectious, meaning they can transmit the virus to others – but not in the way most people think.

1. You can catch chickenpox from someone with shingles

To develop shingles, you must already have had chickenpox. For some patients though, chickenpox can be mild or have happened so long ago that they may struggle to recall having it.

When the shingles blisters burst, the fluid inside them contains the same, live varicella zoster virus. If someone who has never had chickenpox (or hasn’t been vaccinated against it) comes into direct contact with that fluid, they can become infected and develop chickenpox – but not shingles. Shingles only occurs when the dormant virus reawakens inside someone who has already had chickenpox.

For that reason, people with shingles should keep their rash covered (with clothing or a non-adherent dressing) until all the blisters have crusted over and healed.

It’s important to avoid contact with anyone for whom chickenpox could be particularly dangerous. That includes pregnant women – as varicella can sometimes cause complications for the mother and may harm the unborn baby. Newborn infants, whose immune systems are not yet strong enough to fight the infection are also at risk. Other patients with weakened immune systems (such as the elderly, those undergoing chemotherapy or living with conditions like HIV) may also struggle to fight the virus. Chickenpox can become a severe illness in these people, leading to complications like pneumonia.

2. Shingles can occur at any age

Although shingles becomes more likely as we age, it can occur at any time after you’ve had chickenpox – even in young adults or children. It’s more common when the immune system is weakened, which can happen with age, and in people receiving chemotherapy or other immunosuppressive treatments.

3. It can affect more than just your torso

Most cases appear on the chest or back, but shingles can occur anywhere on the body, including the face, limbs and even the genitals. When it affects the face, it can involve the eyes through nerve branches that extend there. This form, known as ophthalmic herpes, can threaten vision and cause blindness if not treated promptly. It can also affect the facial nerve which controls your facial muscles – otherwise known as Ramsay Hunt syndrome.

Some people develop pain, tingling, or sensitivity without a visible rash. The appearance of shingles can also vary by skin tone, making it harder to spot in darker skin.

4. Early treatment helps

If you suspect shingles, see a clinician promptly. Antiviral medications can help shorten recovery time and reduce complications, but they work best when started within 48-72 hours of the rash appearing.

Certain groups, including young, pregnant and breastfeeding patients, people with weakened immune systems and anyone with shingles affecting the face, nose, eyes (including the eye’s surface) or any visual changes, should definitely seek medical attention urgently.

5. The story doesn’t always end when the rash heals

For some, shingles can cause problems even after the visible rash clears. Open blisters can become infected with bacteria, sometimes requiring antibiotics. The virus can also damage nearby nerves, leading to post-herpetic neuralgia – persistent nerve pain that can last for months or even years after the skin has healed. It can feel like burning, stabbing or throbbing pain in the same area where the rash appeared.

Unfortunately, shingles can return again, sometimes in a different part of the body. The shingles vaccine significantly reduces both the risk of developing shingles and the chance of long-term nerve pain like post-herpetic neuralgia, though it doesn’t remove the risk entirely.

Think of shingles not as something you “catch”, but as something that can wake up again within your own body. It’s a reminder that viruses don’t always leave when we think they do. And that protecting yourself and others means recognising the signs early, covering the rash, and getting prompt medical advice.

The Conversation

Dan Baumgardt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Can you catch shingles? A GP explains what people get wrong about this common virus – https://theconversation.com/can-you-catch-shingles-a-gp-explains-what-people-get-wrong-about-this-common-virus-266653

The dark history of medical illustrations and the question of consent

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy E. Hyde, Lecturer, Anatomy, University of Bristol

Vector Hut/Shutterstock.com

They were pregnant. Some were prisoners. Others were the poorest of the poor, forgotten in death as in life. Yet dissection and depiction of their bodies have become the foundation of anatomical teaching.

Cradled in the pages of anatomy textbooks are figures stripped bare, not only of skin but of identity. Eduard Pernkopf’s infamous Nazi-era atlas contains exquisite, hyper-realistic drawings created from the bodies of political prisoners executed under Hitler’s regime.

William Hunter’s celebrated The Gravid Uterus (1774) shows dissected pregnant women with clinical detachment, their swollen wombs exposed. But who were these women? How did they end up on the dissection table? And, crucially, did they ever consent? It’s something rarely considered by educators, students and the public alike.

Today, body donation is governed by clear laws and ethics. In the UK, the 2004 Human Tissue Act (2006 in Scotland) requires informed, personal consent for anatomical investigation, and further consent to be given for production of images.

Annual memorial and thanksgiving services also honour donors, and those studying anatomy are taught to treat cadavers with the same dignity they would offer the living – the medic’s first patient, albeit silent.

But historical anatomical illustrations, still in use across education and medicine, were produced at times long before such safeguards existed. Most texts and imagery feature people who never gave permission to be dissected, let alone depicted for eternity. Should we keep using these images? Or does that make us complicit in a long history of medical exploitation?

Anatomical illustration and, therefore, the history of the peoples depicted, mirrors the legal and cultural attitudes toward dissection at the time. The first recorded human dissections occurred around 300BC in Alexandria, Egypt. In the second century, Galen, a Greek physician, dissected animals and treated gladiators, and laid the foundations for anatomical understanding in Europe for over a thousand years.

In medieval Europe, dissection was rare and heavily ritualised, often serving theological rather than scientific purposes. By the Renaissance, anatomy began to take its modern form. Leonardo da Vinci conducted detailed dissections, producing hundreds of drawings that combined anatomical accuracy with artistic brilliance. Yet he, too, was not above questionable methods, reportedly obtaining bodies through informal deals with hospitals and executioners. The identities of his subjects remain unknown.

In 1543, Andreas Vesalius published De Humani Corporis Fabrica, challenging centuries of Galenic error with visual evidence from dissection. His cadavers, however, were idealised, muscular, often white and probably male.

In one image, a body holds back its own skin to reveal its musculature, just like Saint Bartholomew the Apostle in his martyrdom. Never before had an anatomical text been so highly illustrated. The images were groundbreaking, but they romanticised death and dehumanised the dead.

Over time, anatomical realism became the goal. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Dutch and British anatomists like Govard Bidloo and William Hunter embraced unflinching detail – depicting the morbidity of the cadaver, showing decomposition, often violent incisions, and the tools of dissection.

Hunter’s The Gravid Uterus aimed to transform obstetrics through realism. But it relied on 14 pregnant bodies whose origins remain ethically troubling.

Dissection of the pregnant female abdomen, showing the skin peeled away to reveal the swollen uterus.
The gravid uterus.
Copperplate engraving by G. Scotin after I.V. Rymsdyk, for W. Hunter The Gravid Uterus. 1774, reprinted 1851.

How did he obtain them? Even though the 1752 Murder Act allowed the anatomisation of executed murderers, only a few bodies were legally available in this way, insufficient for demand. Between 1752 and 1776, just four cadavers were sourced under the Act in London.

At the time, the proportion of women dying in childbirth was also low, around 1.4%. The likelihood that Hunter’s subjects were legally obtained is slim. More likely, they were acquired through body snatching, a common but illegal practice. Their identities were never recorded. Their images endure.

Grave robbers or “resurrection men” helped meet the growing demand for cadavers – driven by the expansion of medical education and legal restrictions on supply – by targeting the poor: those buried in shallow, recent or unmarked graves at the edges of cemeteries. Wealthier people could protect their dead in gated cemeteries patrolled by paid guards, coffins protected by iron cages or in stone vaults.

The rich could buy safety even in death. The poor were left exposed, not because they lacked value, but because they lacked power.

The 1832 Anatomy Act curbed grave robbing but entrenched injustice. Unclaimed institutionalised bodies became the new legal supply, those from workhouses, poorhouses, asylums, prisons and hospitals.

Until the 1984 Anatomy Act, and more definitively the 2004 Human Tissue Act, informed consent was not required. Let’s be clear: the bodies in most anatomical images were not volunteers. They were poor, criminalised and marginalised – those who in life already suffered the most.

Eduard Pernkopf in full academic regalia.
Eduard Pernkopf in full academic regalia.
Medizinische Universität WienImmediate

The most extreme more modern example is Pernkopf’s Atlas of Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy. Widely regarded as one of the most detailed and visually stunning anatomical texts, particularly in its depiction of the peripheral nerves, it is the most ethically troubling.

The atlas was created during the Nazi regime, with at least 1,300 bodies of Jewish prisoners, Roma, queer individuals and political dissidents, many of whom were executed in Vienna’s Gestapo prison.

Despite its origins in medical atrocities, the atlas remained in print until the 1990s. Even decades later, its influence persists. A 2019 study found that 13% of neurosurgeons still use the atlas.

Some defend its continued use, citing its anatomical precision, especially in complex neurological surgeries, so long as its dark history is acknowledged. Others argue that any clinical benefit is outweighed by the ethical cost, and that continued use implies endorsement of its origins.

Efforts underway

But Pernkopf is only the most dangerous example. Across many historical images, the same fundamental question arises: can medical knowledge built on exploitation ever be fully separated from it?

There’s no single solution, but there are efforts underway. Some educators are adding context in lectures, footnotes and course materials, taking time to teach the history, acknowledging who was probably depicted and under what circumstances.

Medical illustrators are creating new images based on informed consent and modern day guidelines, partly also to create diverse representation across population history, gender, body type and ability. Institutions are digitising and cataloguing old collections with proper historical notes, so they aren’t used uncritically.

But these efforts are piecemeal. There are no universal standards or regulations governing historical anatomical imagery, falling out of the remit of even the most strict governing body. Meanwhile, these illustrations circulate freely online, in textbooks, even on social media, stripped of context, divorced from their origins.

And so, the same injustices risk being quietly perpetuated. We must start by asking better questions: who is represented in anatomical imagery today? Whose bodies are missing? And whose stories are never told?

Short term, we need clear provenance research, labelling and transparency around historical illustrations. Teachers, editors and publishers must acknowledge the sources of these images, even if unknown.

Long term, we must invest in creating new, inclusive anatomical libraries that reflect the full diversity of human bodies, across gender identities, racial backgrounds, disabilities and life stages. With ethical sourcing and clear consent, we can build materials that respect the living and the dead alike.

The people in these illustrations, silent, anonymous and dissected, were never asked to teach us. But they have and now, it’s our responsibility to ask: what kind of legacy are we creating in return?

If we want medicine to be ethical, inclusive and just, it starts with the very images we learn from. It’s time to look again at the bodies behind the drawings. And this time, to really see them.

The Conversation

Lucy E. Hyde does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The dark history of medical illustrations and the question of consent – https://theconversation.com/the-dark-history-of-medical-illustrations-and-the-question-of-consent-265738

Slender-billed curlews are officially extinct – here’s why the loss of these migratory birds really matters

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Esther Kettel, Senior Lecturer in Ecology and Conservation, Nottingham Trent University

The Eurasian curlew, a close relative of the now-extinct slender-billed curlew. David Havel/Shutterstock

The slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris) has been officially declared extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

This is the first-ever recorded global bird extinction from mainland Europe, North Africa, and West Asia. An accolade that no species wants. Yet, sadly, here we are. So how did we get here and what does this tragic extinction mean?

Numerous warning signs indicated the decline of the slender-billed curlew, with the first documented in 1912. Declines of the species continued over the subsequent decades but it was not until 1988 that it was classified in the high conservation concern category.

Extensive searches for any remaining slender-billed curlews were conducted but there have been no sightings since the mid-1990s. Extinction was declared as highly probable in 2024, and made official by the IUCN in October 2025.

The curlew was once thought to be fairly widespread. It was a migratory species that bred in central Asia and wintered in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. As such, like many migratory species, the curlew relied on various habitats and safe passage routes.

The pressures leading to the extinction are largely unknown. However, due to its migratory nature, the extinction of this species is likely due to a combination of factors across its historic range.




Read more:
Europe’s wild bird species are on the brink – but there are ways to bring them back


Hunting of the species was carried out in many countries along its migratory route and is considered to be one of the major causes of initial declines. In conjunction, drainage of wetlands and overgrazing of grasslands led to the rapid loss of breeding sites for this ground-nesting bird. Conservation efforts were complicated by the fact that its distribution and ecology were largely unknown. So, death rates were high, birth rates were low, and very little could be done.

The last call?

Slender-billed curlews were striking birds. They stood proud with their long legs and slim, pointed, black bill. Their calls were sweet and whistling, but somewhat haunting. It is a sad fact that this bird will never be seen or heard again.

More widely, the loss of this species shines light on the global extinction crisis. Each species plays a vital role within its ecosystem. These curlews fed on small insects, crustaceans and molluscs by probing mud with their thin bills. The role these birds played as a predator in aquatic ecosystems (such as peat bogs) is now no longer filled. This gap will undoubtedly have consequences for other species.

misty shot of curlew wading bird on brown peat bog land
Curlews are ground-nesting birds that rely on healthy peat bogs and other aquatic ecosystems.
F-Focus by Mati Kose/Shutterstock

Slender-billed curlews were indicators of the health of the boggy habitats in which they inhabited. Their decline to eventual extinction signifies that these habitats are under severe stress. Waterbirds like the curlew can also be valuable indicators of water contamination, lack of food availability and changes in nutrient levels.

Wading birds like the slender-billed curlew are declining globally and are considered to be the most pressing bird conservation priority in the UK. Populations of species such as lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), redshank (Tringa tetanus), snipe (Gallinago gallinago) and oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) are declining in size and range across much of the UK due to habitat loss and reduced reproductive success.

The Eurasian curlew (Numenius arquata), a relative of the slender-bill, is of particular conservation concern and is thought to be the UK’s most rapidly declining species. Much effort is being made to save the Eurasian curlew so that it doesn’t follow the same fate as the slender-bill.

The UK Action Plan for Curlew (a coalition of farmers, scientists and charities) is calling for urgent and coordinated action that includes monitoring and research, habitat protection, predator management and guidance for land managers. While populations fell by 51% between 1995 and 2023 across the UK, there are signs that intensive conservation efforts are working, even if only locally.

The loss of the slender-billed curlew is truly saddening. But perhaps, just maybe, we can use this as a wake-up call to do more, and more quickly, for other wading birds that are on a similar trajectory.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

Esther Kettel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Slender-billed curlews are officially extinct – here’s why the loss of these migratory birds really matters – https://theconversation.com/slender-billed-curlews-are-officially-extinct-heres-why-the-loss-of-these-migratory-birds-really-matters-267282

Who are the women supporting Trump?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Clodagh Harrington, Lecturer in American Politics, University College Cork

Twenty five per cent of US voters think that the Republican party has a better plan for women’s rights than the Democrats, according to new polling.

While many liberal female voters are critical about Donald Trump’s remarks about women as well as his policies related to women’s rights, it’s worth noting that between the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, Trump increased his support among women voters, from 42% to 45%.

Making assumptions about female voters as a single voting block is tempting, but there are multiple layers and contradictions within this hugely diverse group. Polling shows that there are a few broad conclusions about their voting patterns.

For example, in the modern era, women have higher turnout rates at US elections than men and have consistently been more likely to vote Democrat.

So, who are those women voters that Trump appeals to? The short answer is white women, or at least, some of them. With a couple of election exceptions (1964, 1996) white women tend to prefer Republican candidates over Democrats. They maintained this trend with Donald Trump.

Trumpism and the Maga movement doesn’t tend to appeal to many college-educated white women. However, religion is a factor.

Born-again or Evangelical believers who tend to be committed to the idea of the traditional family where the man goes to work and the woman stays at home and looks after the children have proved essential to Trump’s support in 2024. Eight in ten (80%) of voters who identified as Christian cast their ballots for the Trump/Vance ticket, up from 71% in 2020.

Women in this group may be more likely to appreciate the Trump administration’s attempts to encourage and support women to have more children. Trump’s proposed “National Medal of Motherhood” would create financial incentives for women to have large families. Women with six or more children may be eligible.

The government has already launched what are known as money accounts for growth and advancement. These saving plans will put a US$1000 (£742) deposit from the government into an account for babies born between 2024 and 2028, with families able to add up to US$5,000 annually before the children can access the money at age 18.

Around 64% of all American women support a legal right to abortion. However, national access to abortion is only supported by 39% of Republican women over 50, according to one poll, and this is another group that may be supportive on the Trump administration agenda on families, which has included moves to restrict abortion.

The tradwives movement has become far more widely discussed since it gained support from Maga politicians.

Factory jobs and the future

The Maga-influenced GOP is not the conservative party of yesteryear, but some aspects of its appeal are not new. Voter priority has long been “the economy, stupid”. And around 24% of women (compared to 17% of men) rank inflation and prices as their most important policy issue.

Trump made slashing the price of eggs a major talking point in his recent election campaign, and this will have resonated with women voters worried about the cost of living. Indeed, Trump claimed he won the election on immigration and groceries.




Read more:
Why Americans care so much about egg prices – and how this issue got so political


Trump also plans to “fix” the economy and “tariff the hell” out of countries that have “taken advantage” of the US. These policies aim to rebuild US domestic manufacturing. For women in manufacturing communities who have seen the negative impact of globalisation – factory closures, job losses and an undermining of the social fabric – this holds appeal.

Those reliant on the local economy for their livelihoods are aware that the survival of this community ecosystem is crucial, not only for those working in industry but for those whose lives are intertwined. Such views are not necessarily Maga-centric, but the movement’s cultural concerns align with these challenges.

Trump’s promises to reject globalism and “embrace patriotism” may offer comfort to those whose socio-economic security has been undermined by the trade decisions of his predecessors.

Trump’s political opponents would be well advised to listen to the concerns of conventionally conservative America. Dismissing their anxieties will not dissipate them. Instead, it may encourage more socially traditional women to embrace the some of Trump’s policies.

But Trump will also need to worry about the state of the economy, and delivering on his price promises. If he doesn’t deliver, those women who put the cost of living at the top of the list may take their votes elsewhere.

The Conversation

Clodagh Harrington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Who are the women supporting Trump? – https://theconversation.com/who-are-the-women-supporting-trump-265027

Black hats, cauldrons and broomsticks: the historic origins of witch iconography

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mari Ellis Dunning, PhD Candidate, Languages and Literature, Aberystwyth University

Shutterstock

Whether they’re knocking at your door trick or treating, or hung as decorations in shop windows, witches are rife at this time of year. They’re easy to recognise, wearing tall, pointed hats, carrying broomsticks, or peering into a cauldron – but where did these stereotypes associated with witches come from?

1. Broomsticks

Much like brooms today, in the 1500s the broomstick was a household tool used to sweep hearths and floors. In rural villages, broomsticks were also often used as a form of signage by alewives, who would place them outside their cottages to show that ale was for sale within. Somehow, this innocuous object found its way into stories of witchcraft.

Marginalia showing a woman riding a broomstick
The image from Martin Le Franc’s Le Champion des Dames believed to be the first of a witch on a broomstick.
The Museum of Witchcraft Ltd

The first image of women flying on broomsticks is believed to be in the manuscript of French poet Martin Le Franc’s Le Champion des Dames (The Defender of Ladies), published in 1485. Women sat astride broomsticks are drawn alongside the text, in the margins of the pages, much as accused witches were often maligned women on the margins of society.

One of the most influential pieces of writing on witchcraft was the Malleus Maleficarum published in 1486 by German clergyman Heinrich Kramer. Kramer’s anti-witchcraft tract alluded to witches flying on anointed broomsticks with the aid of the devil. Given that the work is firmly rooted in misogyny, and depicts witches as a direct threat to the domestic sphere, it’s fitting that such a mundane household item became an object of malice.

2. Cauldrons

Another domestic item, the cauldron, has also become synonymous with witchcraft.

Painting of three witches over a cauldron
The Three Witches from Macbeth by Daniel Gardner (1775).
The National Portrait Gallery

Instead of stews and broths, witches are often shown using cauldrons to stir up potions and spells. Again, it’s likely that this is rooted in ideas of women subverting their usual household duties, as well as a connection to healing practices.

In the 16th and 17th century, people relied on lay healers, people who learned their craft through experience and knowledge passed down through the generations. These healers were usually women who had knowledge of herbal remedies and salves that would claim to cure ailments and heal people and sick animals.

As the reformation drew in and the church became more powerful, lay healing practices and unlicensed healing was pushed aside in favour of trained physicians. With this shift, lay healers boiling herbs in their cauldrons were looked on with increasing suspicion.

3. Tall black hats

Painting of a woman in a pointed hat
Portrait of an Older Woman in a Pointed Hat, artist unknown (c. 17th century).
Concept Art Gallery

Depictions of witches vary across Europe, but there’s no doubt that a tall, black hat has become associated with witches, especially in the UK and the US.

There’s no definitive source for this strange stereotype, but speculation about where it came from is rife, ranging from ideas about Quaker hats to general medieval dress.

Women in early modern (1500 to 1780) Wales typically dressed in long, heavy woollen skirts, aprons, blouses and a large woollen shawl, and a traditional tall, black hat, so there is speculation among some researchers that this served as inspiration for the wide-brimmed hat of the fairy tale witch.

This is fitting given that Wales, along with Cornwall, was seen by Protestant reformers of the early modern period as a land rife with magic and sorcery.

Outside of Europe, tall black hats have also been found on mummies from 200BC unearthed in Subeshi, China, leading scientists to name them the “the witches of Subeshi”.

4. Long, scraggly hair

Depictions of witches usually involve women with long, scraggly hair, often trailing behind them as they ride their broomsticks.

painting of a woman with long black hair reading a book
Black-Haired Woman Reading by Adolf von Becker (1875).
Finnish National Gallery

It’s likely that this conception of witches comes from the dichotomy between “good” Christian women and their “bad” witch counterparts that was established during the reformation.

In the post-medieval period, married women ordinarily covered their hair beneath a cap, and loose hair was generally regarded as an improper attribute of temptresses and the dissolute.

Agnes Griffiths, a Welsh woman accused of witchcraft in 1618, was reportedly seen through the window of her home using something sharp to prick a wax figure, and was described as doing this “with her heare aboute her eares”. The accusation suggests disdain for women who refused to conform to expectations of their gender. In an extension of this, witches were also suspected of hiding wax, which they would use for their sorcery, in their hair, contributing to the stereotype of witches as having greasy locks.

5. Black cats

Women accused of witchcraft between the 14th and 17th centuries were often accused of keeping a familiar – an animal that was actually the devil or a demon in disguise.

A witch with a black cat at her feet
The Love Potion by Evelyn De Morgan (1903).
De Morgan Centre

Familiar spirits were said to come in any number of guises, from frogs and rats to dogs, small horses and even badgers. In a perverse parody of breastfeeding an infant, witches were believed to feed the familiars from their own bodies, and were often consequently stripped and searched for a “witch’s teat”.

The cleric Robert Holland’s witchcraft treatise, which presents some colourful ideas about witchcraft, recounts a story about a witch who would always have a docile rat feeding in her lap.

It goes on to claim that demons would appear in the form that was easiest to keep as a pet, such as cats, mice and frogs, and tells of an old woman and her daughter who were known to have kept the devil for a long time in various animal guises. Supposedly, the older woman fed the animals with blood from her own breasts.

In one particularly famous case of witchcraft, that of Elizabeth Clarke of Manningtree, Clarke admitted to keeping several familiar spirits, and the most well remembered of these was her cat, Vinegar Tom.


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


The Conversation

Mari Ellis Dunning does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Black hats, cauldrons and broomsticks: the historic origins of witch iconography – https://theconversation.com/black-hats-cauldrons-and-broomsticks-the-historic-origins-of-witch-iconography-266417