“Hi! This is Uzi Garcia,” the caller said. 

I was taken aback first by the caller’s distinctively young voice and then by their off-putting tone. As an intern on Capitol Hill, I routinely take calls from constituents and knew there was something different about this caller. Although I could tell there was something off about his voice, I could not pinpoint exactly what was wrong.

Then I heard him say, “I am a fourth grader at Robb Elementary School in Texas. Or at least I was until a man with an AR-15 killed 18 of my classmates, two teachers and me.” 

In February 2024, the parents of 6 victims of gun violence initiated “Shotline,” a campaign using artificial intelligence to recreate their children’s voices in calls to Congress. With the click of a button, users can send one of the six AI-generated calls to a congressional office of their choice. All calls start the same: the AI voice introduces themselves, explains their personality, describes the details of their death and then calls for stricter gun laws that may have prevented their deaths. As of Oct 28, 2024, 170,547 calls have been submitted to Congress. 

According to an interview with one of the six victims’ parents, the process for obtaining life-like audio of their deceased children was relatively easy. All it took was uploading one short audio clip of their children’s voices to the platform, Eleven Labs, an AI voice generator that supports 29 languages and accents. From there, parents typed in their messages and an AI-generated version of their child repeated it back to them. While the voices sound similar to the real kids’ voices, there is something distinctly unsettling about hearing a dead person talk to you — especially a child who was murdered in such a horrific manner. 

Extreme and powerful gun-violence advocacy campaigns are not uncommon — people still remember the “Evan” TV ad where seemingly ordinary scenes in a school setting subtly revealed signs of potential violence among students. However, Shotline crosses a new threshold as one of the first campaigns to use artificial intelligence in this way. Speaking as someone who listened to these calls and heard the voices’ disturbing and inhuman cadences, the impact of their messages cannot be understated. 

This intensity and shock have sparked debate on the use of artificial intelligence, especially to replicate those who have died. Proponents of the campaign say that advocating to Congress in conventional ways has gone nowhere. The father of Joaquin Oliver, a 17-year-old victim of the Majorie Stoneman Douglass High shooting, believes that if lawmakers won’t listen to him, maybe hearing from his son will have an impact. In his opinion, the campaign is supposed to disturb people. “Like, if you find this uncomfortable, … I think that you don’t know what uncomfortable means. I can tell you about feeling uncomfortable. When they let you know that your son, your loved one, was shot and you won’t be able to see him anymore.” 

The general public has had mixed views of the situation as well. In the comment section of one of Shotline’s posts, one user says, “What if everybody did this? It will break avenues to contact representatives when everyone does this.” Others see the Shotline project as exploiting the dead. “What you’re doing is disgusting and shameful. Putting words in dead people’s mouths, literally in their voices. Exploitation.” 

Other people are praising Shotline’s leaders for their courage and savvy in using this new tool to spur controversy and dialogue. One proponent states, “This is an amazing tool, and I’m so proud to have seen you guys here in Tulsa. You are doing great things in the name of love.” 

Along with the ethical debates, another possible ramification that is widely overlooked involves how this type of advocacy could change how congressional offices take calls. Currently, there are thousands of Congressional staff fielding constituent messages. While how many calls an office receives per day can change, my personal experience leads me to believe that offices can get up to hundreds of calls a day. Additionally, messages are only taken from real-life constituents; automated messages are rare and ignored. If AI-generated calls to Congress become more prevalent and the technology improves so that voices are indistinguishable from reality, how will Congressional staff be able to tell the difference? Petitioning your representatives is integral to political engagement, but these calls have the potential to complicate constituent engagement and representation.

AI-driven advocacy campaigns such as Shotline are a fascinating intersection of technology, ethics and activism. The chilling effect of hearing the simulated voices of deceased victims pleading for legislative action not only challenges conventional advocacy tactics but also calls into question the broader implications of AI in influencing public discourse and policymaking. As technology continues to advance, the ethical considerations surrounding its use in all areas of life will become increasingly complex. As we grapple with these dilemmas, it becomes imperative to navigate the intersection of technology and activism with sensitivity, transparency and a steadfast commitment to ethical principles.

As of late February, Palestinian deaths surpassed 30,000 and the devastation has only worsened as the war progresses. Coming from a generation that has never known a world with a weak Israel, it seems illogical and unfathomable to continue supporting Israel as the death tolls increase. Despite protests, pressure from leftist democratic colleagues and international efforts advocating for more severe policies toward Israel, President Biden has barely budged on his stance. Furthermore, all of his statements toward Israel have come in the form of a written statement, phone calls or a statement read by a member of his staff. The only exception was during his State of the Union address where he stated, “Israel also has a fundamental responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Gaza.” However, many are still pushing Biden to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and to stop sending military aid to Israel. In the eyes of many young democratic voters, President Biden is not doing nearly enough to stop Israel, and it’s difficult to understand why. 

While ending military aid to Israel and insisting on a permanent ceasefire may seem like a no-brainer for my generation, the reality is much more nuanced. Joe Biden’s stance toward Israel is not necessarily out of a lack of compassion or cowardice, but pure history and politics. Crediting his pro-Israel perspective to his father, Biden recalls that his father emphasized the undeniable justice of establishing Israel as a Jewish homeland in 1948 following the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. His historic view of Israel is as a small country fighting for democracy in a region of instability, not the powerful, right-leaning and domineering country many people my age see today. Throughout his Senate career Biden also received $5 million from pro-Israeli groups, the chamber’s biggest recipient in history. This should not be surprising nor, arguably, worrying. For most of American history since the end of WWII, support for Israel has persisted, especially for democrats. Due to the historical context surrounding Biden’s tenure in the Senate, this is not abnormal. The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state in 1949 and the country has been, and remains, America’s greatest ally in the Middle East and is praised as a symbol of democracy in the region. 

However, it is not 1949 anymore, and the gravity of the situation is becoming increasingly apparent. If Joe Biden does not reassess his pattern of nonconfrontation and passive diplomacy with Netanyahu, it may be too late to help the situation in Gaza and protect his base. President Biden won Michigan in the 2020 election but the results of the February Michigan primary, with a substantial number of undecided votes, suggest that his unwavering support for Israel could potentially be a deciding factor against him in a close general election. Key swing states like Michigan and young voters won Biden the 2020 election, but his support for Israel may jeopardize his 2024 chances, as young voters are less likely to vote in 2024 than in 2020. With such a close race, Biden cannot afford a low young voter turnout. 

That all being said, there is also the very real possibility that if President Biden takes back his support for Israel, Republicans may be quick to portray the president as anti-Israel. Republicans on the House Armed Service Committee have criticized initiatives to direct more aid into the region. Missouri Congressman Mark Alford said, “90 percent of [humanitarian]funding” ends up in the hands of Hamas. While the social media and political circles of my peers and I are skewed in favor of Palestinians, it can be easy to forget that the general public lacks a consensus on the level of support the United States should provide to Israel. Joe Biden is not the only one whose historical and personal experience with Israel deeply influences their political views. Older generations tend to view Israel as a refuge for the Jews after the painful, visceral memories of the Holocaust. One report shows that less than half (48%) of Gen Z and millennials believe the United States should publicly voice support of Israel compared with 63% of Gen Xers and 83% of baby boomers. 30 years ago, support for Israel was more associated with Democrats than Republicans. Today, many democratic Gen Z voters find it very difficult to wrap their heads around a world that sees Israel’s actions as justified and fair. Recognizing these generational divides is essential for navigating the broader discourse surrounding Israeli-Palestinian relations.

It is also valuable for my age group to understand the historical relevance of congressional and presidential support for Israel. There has never been a U.S. president to actively oppose Israel. Throughout Joe Biden’s long career, it has never been an option to withdraw support for Israel. It is also important to note that Biden’s stance is not unique nor should it be surprising: the mainstream political discourse has always skewed in Israel’s favor. As Jimmy Carter once put it, “It’s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace.” In summary, it is unrealistic to expect Joe Biden and other politicians to completely shift their worldview that has been shaped over decades of precedent. 

This does not mean that the American people should wait around for Joe Biden to change his mind while thousands of Palestinians die every day. The world is not the same as it was 80 years ago and neither are international dynamics. While these historical precedents should not be ignored, there needs to be some acknowledgment of the Israeli government’s role in Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. In a conflict that is so rooted in history, it is imperative to keep in mind the long history that the president and the country have had with Israel if there is any hope of ending the suffering, death and destruction in Gaza.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

Defining Hispanic identity is not a contemporary issue — putting racial and ethnic labels on different identities has been ongoing for centuries. In the 15th century, when Spanish colonizers first arrived in present-day Mexico, they created a system of social classes known as the caste system. The system designated a person’s race with their economic status. Essentially, the more Spanish blood a person had, the higher they ranked in the system. The famous painting “Las Castas” depicts sixteen different caste combinations and labels. 

As far back as at least the 15th century, Hispanic people have been judged and evaluated based on how white they are. Whether it’s official documentation or everyday interactions, it feels impossible to escape these classifications. As someone who considers herself a mixed Hispanic (my dad is from Mexico, and my mom is a white American), it feels like everywhere I go and in every first interaction, people are trying to figure out how white I am. Sometimes, it feels as if someone is pulling up an imaginary “Las Castas” painting to my face to determine which classification I fall into. 

The truth is, most mixed people don’t really know their ethnic or racial make-up. When people ask my ethnicity, my most common response is, “I am half white and half Mexican;” but, the reality is much harder to explain and goes beyond percentages and fractions. 

The Hispanic identity is historically a mixed one. Because there were interracial marriages and relationships during the colonial period, the populations of most Hispanic countries have mixed identities to begin with. As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to separate and put labels on identities clearly. Being Hispanic is not homogenous, and we need to stop acting like it is. 

Furthermore, an emphasis on defining race often plays into ideas of colorism and racism in these communities. A new Pew Research Study states that Hispanics of darker skin reported less access to opportunities and more discrimination compared to those with a lighter complexion. It is important to remember that not every Hispanic person’s experience is the same and most harbor multiple identities. The Hispanic identity is in and of itself an intersection of many experiences and identities. 

On the other hand, as a mixed Hispanic, I am often called “white-washed” or accused of not being a “real Mexican.”  While it is important to point out whitewashing in film and television, for example when characters of color are replaced with white characters, sometimes the term can be used to invalidate someone else’s identity. Although preserving our culture and celebrating our heritage is critical, sometimes I wonder if terms like “white-washed” should be used more carefully. Who gets to decide who is a “real Mexican?” Identity is a deeply personal topic and varies from person to person. 

I grew up listening to Latin music and making tortillas for dinner, but I never learned Spanish fluently and have never stepped foot in Mexico. Even though I identify as a Hispanic woman, I know some people would disagree with me. I also know that other people may identify as the exact same thing but look and have different experiences than I do. 

So where exactly do we draw the line between who gets to be Hispanic and what makes someone whitewashed? If I learned more Spanish as a kid, would that change the box I mark on the U.S. census? If I took a DNA test and it turned out to be 49% Mexican, would I still be Hispanic? 

When identity is defined by race, what languages you can speak, etc., it delegitimizes people’s experiences. Since identity is so personal, finding a definition that incorporates everyone’s nuances becomes harder and harder. It puts unnecessary emphasis on somewhat subjective elements. 

At a glance, the 2020 U.S. census shows that the Hispanic population is shrinking. However, in reality, the demographic is getting more diverse and more mixed. The population, in this way, is actually growing. Instead of viewing the increased numbers of mixed-raced Hispanics as a dilution of culture and heritage, it may be more useful to understand these numbers as a marker of diversity. 

The Hispanic population is a heterogeneous one, comprised of different, unique individuals. In order to understand the Hispanic population, it is crucial to understand all of its nuances and diversities. I identify as a mixed Hispanic woman. These two classifications are not contradictory, rather, being Hispanic means being diverse. 

It means celebrating Hispanic heritage in all its forms, colors and differences. 

Human rights groups argue that this systematic resettlement is part of a broader effort to make Ukraine a part of Russia without territorial conquest. The Russification of Ukrainian children physically takes children out of their homes while mentally shaping their identity from Ukrainian to Russian. 

The kidnapping is a microcosm of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. While territory and sovereignty are at stake, so are identity and history. 

Glimpse from the Globe sat down with Douglas Becker, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California and a historical memory scholar, to discuss the importance and complexity of historical memory in this war. 

–

Q: What is Historical Memory, and how is it different from history?

A: History is telling a narrative of the past; memory is the filtering of that narrative for contemporary purposes. It’s the way in which people reading history will remember that history, whether they lived through it — a distinct personal memory — or it is filtered and negotiated by the historians or very much by political and social actors.  

Q: Would you say that, in this case, Russia and Ukraine have shared histories but differing historical memories? 

A: Well, they definitely have histories that intertwine, but you used the word share, and that’s complex. The notion of a shared history is decidedly Russian. The idea is that Russia and Ukraine are intertwined so much so that many Russians consider Ukraine to be “‘Little Russia.’” Ukrainians push back pretty directly on that notion of a shared history. They would rather agree on the idea of an intertwined history. Increasingly that narrative is taking on a colonial form. So Ukrainian history and identity are forms of resistance to the Russian narrative.

Q: So, are these conflictual views an example of a difference in historical memory?

A:  That’s part of it, but memory is a little more complex than that. Think of the Hollywood trope where the same event is viewed from multiple perspectives and perceptions of what’s happened. There are all of these elements of history, but memory might isolate one of these factors or arguments. 

Q: American news coverage tends to focus on tangible explanations for this war. Since memory is so intangible, how much of this war would you say is based on a difference in historical memory and identity? 

A: I actually think that there has been a lot of conversation about identity because there’s been terribly little emphasis from an IR perspective, from a traditional realist perspective, on resources. The question then is, how much of identity is tied to history and memory? Memory scholars like myself understand identity as not static but rather flexible, organic and developing. President Biden and the United States tend to focus on protecting Ukraine as a democracy from an authoritarian state. They’re not citing history and historical memory as much — Ukrainians will. A better way of putting this is Ukrainians telling Putin, “you’re trying to implant your memory in my head.” 

Q: Would it be fair to say then that the war is both a territorial attack and an attack on Ukraine’s memory and identity?

A: Yes, and you can’t unlink the two. What’s driving Russia at this point is a desire to annex Ukraine or ensure that the Ukrainian government is always compliant with the Russians to create, in essence, a puppet state. What becomes the means by which to ensure you win the war would have to be some memory discourse where Ukrainians will accept the Russian role because of the notion that we are all the same nation. 

Q: Earlier, you mentioned that memory discourse could be used for political gain. How does that affect how leaders approach policy? 

A: It must. One issue I constantly wrestle with is the leaders choosing these memories based on what they want to accomplish — memory is a tool to get a policy outcome that they want — and how much of it has to do with the leaders’ own memories and beliefs. How much are issues driven by memory, and how much is instrumental? What Putin is doing in Ukraine clearly has a degree of instrumentality. 

Q: So because this war is largely based on memory and identity, it becomes all that much harder to resolve? 

A: Absolutely. How do you compromise your identity? How do you compromise your memory? When a conflict is over memory as opposed to over territory or resources, it is so much harder to resolve. As conflicts become increasingly about identity, all negotiation techniques fail. Memory battles tend to be existential battles. How do you negotiate wars where if you lose, you lose your identity? It makes these wars more difficult to resolve, and I become all the more pessimistic about the possibility of a resolution.  

– 

As the Ukraine and Russia war drags on, the stakes expand beyond territory and become more and more existential. Historical memory discourse provides an explanation and analysis of how or if the conflict will be resolved. As time goes on, it becomes less and less likely either side will be willing to lose their identity and memory to negotiation.