Welcome! (About this Blog)
Hi friends and strangers!
This blog is set up to chronicle my research & activism, which are completely intertwined and related on almost every level. (I use the word “my” up there to mean stuff I’m involved in–not to be possessive…as these are always collective processes involving inspiration from and the contributions of so many fantastic people.) The pages (top right) have information about me, and more importantly, contain my thesis (an anarchist ethnography) as it unfolds. Particularly what I’m interested in is transforming anthropological methods into something….more radical, less oppressive, more decolonizing (: And always practical & engaged. I invite comments, questions, input, etc throughout this process, most especially from community members and friends who are involved in the project. I especially want you all to hold me accountable, know where I’m at with, and have input into, theory, anthropology, and analysis, and to challenge me if I’m screwing stuff up!
Below the “pages”, on the…middle right, we have links! A bunch of these lead to wicked Hamilton projects that myself and/or the people who’s voices you hear throughout the anarchist ethnography are involved in. If you like what you see, there are tons of ways to get involved! We love new faces, especially ones seeking social transformation! Come be curious at FreeSkool, lend your little ones to the Womb Childcare Collective, and check out some of the awesome stuff going on with the Peace Cafe. Also with the links are resources on racism & oppression. Not created by us, but also amazing. Thanks strangers!
Below that on the right we have “Recent Posts” and “Categories”. The blog posts are a bit more random. They are…newsy, about ongoing activisms. They’re also reflections about anthropology…or information about FreeSkool classes…or reflections on racism and discourse–in other words, reflections on how we tell the story shows how we see the world, and what that says about our implicit assumptions… Things that don’t really fit elsewhere, but that I’ve been thinking about and just want to share.
Welcome! Enjoy! Thanks for taking the time to browse through & have yourself a lovely day.
Peace, love, & solidarity,
~~Niki
Film Screening & Discussion: Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance
Monday July 25th 6-9pm
Skydragon Centre: 27 King William St. Hamilton
Background
Alanis Obomsawin’s award winning documentary about the 1990 Oka Crisis, featuring in depth footage of the 78 day standoff involving Mohawks, Police & Military, as well as background to the standoff, including treaties, agreements, and the history of land appropriation.
The screening of this documentary follows last term’s screening of Sewatokwa-tshera’t: The Dish With One Spoon, by Dr Dawn Martin-Hill, regarding Six Nations land reclamation at Kanonhstaton/Caledonia.
In our discussion we will consider colonialism, land expropriation, blacklash, racism, and the role of the police and military in Indigenous land occupations, as well as the roles and reactions of government officials and non-Native neighbouring communities, paying attention to the continuity and consistency with recent, ongoing, and contemporary struggles for indigenous land and sovereignty.
It is my hope that by recognizing these connections we can better understand contemporary struggles and how to move forward, rooted in a critical understanding of colonial histories and ongoing injustices.
This film screening is brought to you by Hamiton FreeSkool’s Practical Solidarity, and the Hamilton Centre for Teaching Peace as part of Edu-Macation Mondays.
For more information about this event or additional Practical Solidarity events contact Niki: csn.thorne@gmail.com
Privilege & the Language of Safe Space:
How the language of safe space and boundaries can be used to avoid accountability for oppressive behaviours and discussions of privilege
A lot of people in my life use the language of safe space and boundaries. Sometimes I use this language too, as a tool for talking about my feelings, what I need, things that make me uncomfortable. I think it can be particularly useful when taking about sex, sexual assault, and situations of abuse. It’s important to be able to articulate clear boundaries for oneself, to be able to clearly and unequivocally say “No”. To have spaces where certain behaviours are not accepted or tolerated. In terms of creating safer spaces, I think, for example, about anarchists, punks & other radical folks who throw dance parties where sexual harassment is defined very clearly. In these situations, people making others uncomfortable are asked to change their behaviour or leave in order to create a safer space where womyn, and others don’t feel threatened or uncomfortable. Thus, creating a safe space that has limited tolerance for oppressive behaviours will necessarily exclude those who continue to engage in those behaviours.
So this style of communicating our needs, setting our boundaries, and looking after one another can be incredibly useful. But I have been experiencing a growing discomfort about how this language has and is being used by a number of my friends and allies over the past few months. It has been hard to put my finger on the root of my wariness and to name these concerns until quite recently. In the past few weeks, though, stemming from ongoing tensions in my personal life and in solidarity movements I participate in, my attention has focused on the privilege inherent in this language. It can be used to deny accountability, avoid conversations about complicity, and all in all, to allow white womyn to continue to engage in oppressive behaviours while reaffirming their own victimhood or innocence.
But first, some clarity on what I mean by oppression and privilege. When I use the word oppression, I’m talking about racism, sexism, ableism, classism, and any other hierarchical system that puts certain groups of people at an advantage over other groups of people. As Peter Gelderloos notes, it’s about more than just personal attitudes: those who belong to a more powerful group hold power over those who are targeted by oppression. This might include greater legal rights, control of economy, government and cultural institutions, and members of dominant groups can generally “infringe on the rights of members of the oppressed group without being punished” (Gelderloos 2005). Furthermore, individuals who are privileged by this system are taught not to see their privilege. We’re socialized in such a way that it takes a lot of uncomfortable learning to think about the ways that we’re complicit in these systems of privilege and oppression.
Furthermore,
“Use of the term “privileged” is not intended to blame privileged people for the systems of oppression into which we were born any more than the intent is to portray oppressed peoples as helpless victims. Rather, the purpose is to admit that we have a responsibility to challenge oppression, because oppressive systems enlist us, willingly or unwillingly, as accomplices in their perpetuation, and we can not absolve ourselves of our participation simply by improving our attitude… Oppression is a way that society is organized, and you cannot avoid it while remaining a member of society.” (Gelderloos 2005)
We are complicit in structures of oppression and privilege whether we are conscious of our complicity or not, and this ability to remain ignorant about our own privilege is itself a privilege and one of the key ways these systems of privilege and oppression are maintained.
When I talk about the privilege that exists in using the language of safe space and boundaries, I am not suggesting that these white womyn should not be able to articulate their boundaries and expect to have them respected. I do, however, mean to point very clearly to the fact that not all womyn can use this language and have others respect their boundaries. This seems to be linked with race and class privilege.
Beyond this, I’ve noticed white womyn using this language in a way that avoids having to listen to the concerns of one’s own complicity from womyn of colour and indigenous womyn. Used in this way, the language of boundaries and safe space has been taken up as a tool to avoid the hard work of thinking about one’s own day to day complicity in systems that sustain oppression.
I have noticed white womyn, whether they identify as feminists, or anarchists, or not, using this language to avoid reflecting on one’s own privilege and racism, and to avoid meaningful dialogue with indigenous womyn. I have noticed this language paired with the common derailing tactic of personal accusations and drama. I have noticed the language of safe space and boundaries used as a carte blanche, so that everything, suddenly, centres around this one person (usually a white, female-bodied feminist).
All other dialogue is thus rerouted or shut down, including criticism of the racist behaviours of the white womyn in question – dialogue initiated by womyn of colour and indigenous womyn. It has been used as a shield for avoiding accountability for one’s own oppressive behaviours.
This is a huge problem in our movements, especially in terms of linking together our struggles. Appropriating this language as described above contributes towards ongoing patterns of colonial oppression, and furthermore, it hides its oppression in what many take uncritically to be inherently radical and anti-oppressive language, which makes it all the more insidious. This language is a tool that needs to be used critically and self-reflexively. As useful as it is to speak about our needs and desires, it can also be used to silence womyn of colour, indigenous womyn, and others, while the invisible privilege of white womyn goes unnamed and unchallenged.
I write this from a position of respect and friendship, and want to encourage my friends and allies to be humble and brave in continuing to recognize the ways that our actions, and the ways we listen or speak over others is bound up in systems of privilege and oppression.
We need to recognize that belonging to some category of “oppressed” peoples does not absolve us of responsibility for challenging the ways in which we are oppressive towards others, including those we call friends and allies. We need to continually work on consciously unlearning these behaviours. We need to practice these skills on an ongoing basis — it is not enough to understand the theory of privilege and oppression in the abstract.
How do we embody unlearning racism? What practices do we engage in to be responsible and accountable when it comes to privilege and oppression? How do we cultivate non-defensive listening skills? How do we react and respond when we are called out on our oppressive behaviours? Think hard, and think critically about these questions. Knowing how we would like to respond is not always the same as how we do respond. It’s hard work being open and accountable, and I want acknowledge the bravery it takes to do this work. I also want to thank all of the friends who have shared their wisdom with me, without whom these reflections would have been much more difficult to convey.
“Truth and Reconciliation”
Caledonia/Six Nations, February 27th, 2011
Gary McHale organizes a “Truth and Reconciliation” rally in Caledonia, demanding that the OPP, the government, and Six Nations people apologize to the “victims” of Caledonia. They attempt to erect an “apology” monument at kanonhstaton (the reclamation site).
McHale has approximately 20 supporters.
At the same time, in the same place, another Truth and Reconciliation rally is organized by the Six Nations Solidarity Network, demanding that the history of colonialism and land appropriation be recognized, and that Six Nations rights to the land be respected.
About 200 people attended this rally.
Mark Vandermaas & supporters vow to return each month to erect to the apology monument.
Many Caledonians insist that Gary McHale and Mark Vandermaas do not speak for them.
For more information see 6nsolidarity.wordpress.com
Film Screening: The Dish With One Spoon –Feb 25th
The Hamilton Centre for Teaching Peace & Hamilton FreeSkool’s Practical Solidarity present
Film Screening, Discussion & Art Making: 5th Anniversary of the Reclamation at Kanonhstaton
What: Showing of Sewatokwa’tshera’t: The Dish With One Spoon, Dr. Dawn Martin-Hill’s documentary regarding Six Nations land reclamation at Kanonhstaton/Caledonia
When: Friday, February 25, 2011 at 7:30pm
Where: The Skydragon Centre (27 King William St, Hamilton)
On February 25th, just a few days prior to the fifth anniversary of the reclamation of Kanonhstaton, join us for a discussion, art making, and a screening of Dr. Dawn Martin-Hill’s documentary, entitled Sewatokwa’tshera’t: The Dish With One Spoon.
Background:
On February 28th, 2006, in response to continuing encroachment of land, and after beginning with an informational campaign, a group of people from Six Nations blocked the development of the Douglas Creek Estates subdivision and reclaimed Kanonhstaton (loosely translated as “the protected place”). The reclamation was followed by racist backlash, often rooted in a refusal to acknowledge Six Nations rights to the land, and the history of land claims on the Haldimand tract. This documentary explores the history, events of the reclamation, the OPP raid, as well as backlash and racism. The documentary will begin at 7:30, followed by questions and discussion, including a discussion of the current context of the reclamation and state of land claims on the Haldimand Tract, settler solidarity, and announcements regarding anniversary events in Caledonia and at the reclamation site. Following the discussion, there will be opportunity for making art for these events (materials provided).
For more information about this event contact Niki Thorne (csn.thorne@gmail.com)
Conceptualizing and Illustrating the Workings of Race as a Discourse: Angry White Men, Anxiety, Masculinity, and Anti-Land Claims Activism
A rough draft of a course paper. Comments welcome esp. with regard to clarity. Plan on handing this in tonight. Sources are from the 90′s, as I needed to stick with reflecting on what we’ve read in the class.
By Niki Thorne for Anthropology 5175: Discourses of Race & Racist Discourses
Introduction:
In this paper, I work through some beginning ideas about the workings of race as a discourse, in at attempt to illustrate the grids of intelligibility that run through self-stylized civil rights discourse that is in opposition to land claims activism. I also discuss the performance of these discourses in terms of representations of Native bodies and constructions of white (male) identities. In conceptualizing this paper as a response or reflection on our course readings, I have found it interesting and productive to bring in some thoughts on how certain course readings have enabled re-thinking of issues within my field site.
By way of introduction, since Six Nations’ reclamation/occupation of Kanonhstaton/Douglas Creek Estates almost five years ago I have been grappling with understanding the reactions, responses and backlash of many Caledonians, politicians, and other white (hegemonic, “unmarked”) Canadians.[1] In the months following the reclamation, hundreds of (white) people gathered in weekly opposition to direct action at Six Nations, singing the national anthem, waving Canadian flags, holding signs and chanting, separated from the reclamation site by police lines. Some warmed their hands over barrels of fire while chanting “Burn, Natives, Burn” while others held signs that said “What would John Wayne do?” These first rallies brought to mind the old frontier towns depicted in American Western films.
In the months and years following, there have been shifts in the reactions, responses and rhetoric to Six Nations direct action, what Ali Rattansi has called “complex and ever-changing reconfigurations” (1994:56). Ruth Frankenberg (1997:16) talks about white patriot and militia movements and their “eery resonance with more “mainstream” white fears and fantasies” as well as ways in which racism is sometimes explicit while at other times it becomes recoded in nationalist and cultural terms. I have continuously found myself bewildered by the manner in which common public discourse around these issues negates colonialism, racism and deep seated epistemic violence while convincingly remaking (white) small town citizens into ‘helpless victims’ of ‘land-claims terrorism’ perpetuated by ‘violent’, ‘dangerous’ Natives while calling for ‘rule of law’ and erasing all historicity.[2] For example, many of the self stylized “civil rights activists” involved in organizing against Six Nations land claims in and around Caledonia reference Native lawlessness, terrorism, and the fear of Caledonia townspeople. See, for example, Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford’s book about Caledonia entitled “Helpless: Caledonia’s Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed Us All.”
Gary McHale, editor of Caledonia Wake Up Call and cofounder of CANACE (“Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality”) describes himself as “a full time Civil Rights Advocate working to stop violence and the OPP [Ontario Provincial Police] racially based policing during Aboriginal land claims.” [source?]. McHale also served as spokesperson for the Caledonia “Militia”, later renamed the Caledonia “Peacekeepers”, before running for mayor.
I have written more extensively about the history of land expropriation and resistance at Six Nations, as well as the backlash and discourses elsewhere[3], but I always feel as though my analysis is never quite complete, and as though I am always missing something about the ways in which civil rights discourses are mobilized and transformed to make claims of white vicitimhood. Rattansi discusses these mobilizations and transformations in the context of the Ku Klux Klan, the British extreme right, British popular culture and British National party statements, in terms of how racializing exclusionary discourses can take anti-racist language and principles and egalitarian appeals, becoming “transmuted into a defence of the rights of white cultures…conjoined with claims that the real problem is that whites have become ‘second-class citizens’ in their own countries” (1994:56). Furthermore, Frankenberg states that “notions of race are closely linked to ideas about legitimate “ownership” of the nation, with “whiteness” and “Americanness” linked tightly together” (1997:6). This statement seems applicable to all settler nations, including Canada. Further, Frankenberg cites the “repressed memory of the brownness of he original residents of this land…and of the immigrant origins of white United Statesians” (1997:6). In terms of silencing the violence of settlers (i.e. in the westward expansion in North America, in the transformation of slaves), Frankenberg points to “a morass of erasures, inversions, distortions, and partial namings of actual historical and sociocultural processes” (1997:15).
In order to illustrate the workings of race as a discourse, and grids of intelligibility as well as representations and identity, I focus on trying to understand angry white men and anti-land claims activism, paying particular attention to anxiety and white masculinity. For this discussion, I draw from Anne McClintock and Judith Butler to talk about racial anxiety, as well as from Ali Rattansi to discuss anxiety and attraction, and constructions of masculinity and femininity. I also draw extensively from David Wellman’s piece about performance of white masculinity in terms of minstrel shows and affirmative action. In addition to being about race and racial imagination, Wellman argues that minstrelsy addressed white America, and that it “provided an opportunity for white, heterosexual, male American identities to be fashioned and expressed…Minstrelsy linked global political-economic forces to the everyday experiences of white (male) Americans. The minstrel show soothed white anxieties, they reassured white men who they were not: not black, not slave, not gay” (Wellman 1997:312). Wellman discusses anti-affirmative action and the language of “fairness,” “colour-blindness,” and “meritocracy” as another way of constructing and expressing white male identity. Performing this language “assures white men who they are not: not unqualified recipients of unfair advantage, not responsible for past racial injustices, not beneficiaries of government assistance” (Wellman 1997:313). Wellman’s analysis of anti-affirmative action discourse as a performance that soothes white anxieties is suggestive of how to think about anti-land claim narratives. These narratives are framed in the language of special rights, i.e. with regards to tax status, and rule of law, claiming that Natives are given preferential treatment. Like Wellman’s examples, these narratives are full of distortions and misrepresentations in which data, facts, and histories of colonialism, dispossession and exploitation are ignored: “Assertion substitutes for argumentation; anecdotes pretend to be systematic evidence; mystification masquerades as social science; and fantasy is treated as truth. It is a remarkable performance” (Wellman 1997:313).
Part 1: Whiteness & Anxiety
Before discussing ideas on how contemporary forms of minstrelsy function in terms of white identity and racialized representation as well as soothing white anxieties, I think it is productive to first discuss racialization and anxiety in more general terms. A number of the authors that we have read this term have cited the role of fear, chaos, paranoia, and anxiety as critical to the success and prevalence of projects related to processes of racialization and racism. In this section, I use ideas around anxiety and racist structuring of perception to help illustrate grids of intelligibility with respect to constructions of Natives as violent and threatening as well as to understand constructions of white victimhood, and Caledonians in need of protection from violent Native intentionality. First, however, a few notes about theorizing whiteness.
In terms of anxiety and racialization, Frankenberg cites American fears of immigration, tensions about places of origin, and fears that whites will be culturally and linguistically overwhelmed, with some places of origin, cultures and languages perceived as more threatening than others. Anne McClintock points to the significance of uncertainty and threat, but in the rise of soap as a fetish commodity during imperial expansion, and its role in the maintenance of racial boundaries. In “Soft-Soaping Empire: Commodity Racism and Imperial Advertising,” McClintock discusses soap as a fetish within the cult of domesticity that persuasively mediates “the Victorian poetics of racial hygiene and imperial progress” (1995:209) and is “central to industrial modernity, inhabiting and mediating the uncertain threshold zones between domesticity and industry, metropolis and empire” (1995:210). As a commodity representing social value, soap did not flourish when colonialism was at its peak, but rather through uncertainty, through “an era of impeding crisis and social calamity, serving to preserve, through fetish ritual, the uncertain boundaries of class, gender and race identity in a social order felt to be threatened by the fetid effluvia of the slums, the belching smoke of industry, social agitation, economic upheaval, imperial competition and anticolonial resistance” (1995:211). Fascination with clean white bodies and the consumption of soap acted as a fetish ritual to preserve threatened order: “soap took shape as a technology of social purification, inextricably entwined with the semiotics of imperial racism and class denigration” (1995:212). This illustrates the importance of anxiety and fear in the construction and maintenance of racial difference.
Judith Butler draws on notions of white paranoia and anxiety to make sense of violence and racialization, namely, how the video of the beating of Rodney King was used by defense attorneys representing the police as evidence that Rodney King was dangerous. In “Endangered/Endangering: Schematic Racism and White Paranoia”, Butler discusses how “what many took to be incontrovertible evidence against the police was presented instead to establish police vulnerability, that is, to support the contention that Rodney King was endangering the police” (1993:15). Butler takes up the question of how this feat of interpretation was achieved. According to Butler, “that it was achieved is not the consequence of ignoring the video, but, rather, of reproducing the video within a racially saturated field of visibility” (1993:13). Butler insists that racism pervades and structures white perception. From multiple interpretations–i.e. a position that sees Rodney King brutally beaten by the police and another that sees him as dangerous and threatening the police–emerges “a contest within the visual field, a crisis in the certainty of what is visible,” produced through “the inverted projections of white paranoia” (1993:16).[4] This “seeing” is actually reading—“culled, cultivated, regulated—indeed, policed—in the course of the trial. This is not a simple seeing, an act of direct perception, but the racial production of the visible” (Butler 1993:16). Butler argues that the visual field “is itself a racial formation, an episteme, hegemonic and forceful” (1993:17).
Butler references Franz Fannon’s description of how the black male body is constituted through fear, naming and seeing. She calls this a racist interpellation in which the black body is circumscribed as dangerous while the white body is infantilized as helpless and in need of protection. Furthermore, “within this imaginary schema, the police protect whiteness, their own violence cannot be read as violence; because the black male body, prior to any video, is the site and source of danger, a threat, the police effort to subdue this body, even if in advance, is justified regardless of the circumstances” (Butler 1993:18). In this racist episteme, Rodney King is hit for blows he did not deliver, what Butler calls the splitting off of violent intentionality, which is then reproduced through the racist pedagogy of the defense attorneys. Through the trial, jurors identify through white paranoia with a white community that is protected by the police from this violent intentionality: “Attributing violence to the object of violence is part of the very mechanism that recapitulates violence, and that makes the jury’s “seeing” into a complicity with that police violence” (Butler 1993:20).
Rather than reading only this “event” in terms of violence, Butler argues for the reading of “the racist schema that orchestrates and interprets the event, which splits the violent intention off from the body who wields it and attributes it to the body who receives it” (1993:20). This reading points to implications beyond Rodney King regarding police and state violence against the racialized other in terms of the intensification of police violence against people of colour and the repeated exoneration of police and state.
Thus, Butler provides an interesting and productive (and enraging) lens for understanding how, through the pervasiveness of racism that structures white perception, anxiety and paranoia lead to reading the black male body as a source of violence in contrast to white bodies in need of protection. This article is good to think with in terms of grappling with some of the puzzling narratives that are bound up in my field site with respect calls for law and order, in which white Caledonians are framed as in need of protection by the OPP, RCMP and military, and Natives are read as violent terrorists.[5] For instance, on May 2nd, 2007, residents of Caledonia opposed to the ‘occupation’ of Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton), staged a slow moving convoy to Queen’s Park, rallying to encourage the provincial government to intervene and bring a stop to what some referred to as “land claims terrorism”. I brought a video camera and recorded some of the speeches. Craig Grice, a member of the Haldimand council, received much support as he addressed the gathered crowd. According to Grice, “The people of Ontario and the nation need to recognize that we have witnessed police inaction and been subjected to acts that have caused a very real sense of community panic.” He spoke about the “threat” of blockades, the “anguish” of community members. He questioned “the reliability of the police to protect us” and to much cheering said, “Truly stated the residents of Caledonia are the victims…we must be allowed to return to our lives, free of intimidation and immediate concern for family safety.” Marie Trainer, mayor of Caledonia until this past October, performed a similar narrative, appealing for the safety of the children: “People of Caledonia need normalcy back in their lives. Children need to be able to splash in their backyard pools and camp out in their tents and the sixth line needs policing.” Trainer spoke of the “fear, intimidation, helplessness” of the Caledonians. It is worth noting that the reclamation of Kanonhstaton was unarmed, supported by the clan mothers, and led by the women, beginning with information pickets months before stopping construction. This sort of information, however, has often been ignored through racist episteme that structures much of white perception and paranoia with regards to the reclamation and blockades.
Part 2: Whiteness, Anxiety& Minstrelsy: Performance of Race, Masculinity & Identity
Wellman provides further analytical tools for thinking about how narratives of white victimhood and accusations of special rights are performed by white Caledonians, politicians and journalists. Before getting into the specifics of this, it may be useful to talk more generally about whiteness and identity, drawing from Ali Rattansi with regards to the formation of Western identities as well as the sexualization and gendering of colonial discourse.
Rattansi discusses how ‘Western’ identities have continually been formed through relations and encounters (whether actual or imagined) with non-Western Others of modernity. In particular, Rattansi (1994:36) argues that:
it has become increasingly clear how the formation of ‘Western’ identities has been a process profoundly shaped by European encounters with those other ‘Others’, met, pillaged and subjugated during voyages of ‘discovery’. The ‘discoveries’ the West made were as much discoveries, and productions, of itself as of the people and lands encountered.
Rattansi also discusses fantasies and anxieties, repulsion and desire, for example, about ‘mythic figures, and ‘monstrous races’, “invested with lascivious sexuality and extraordinary sexual powers” (1994:43). Fears of ‘miscengenation’ fed into anxieties about racial degeneration, which were in turn underpinned by discourses of eugenics as well as class discourses about codes of breeding. These discourses constructed white women as the reproducers of the race, mothers who belonged in the domestic sphere. Rattansi also discusses “the selective effeminization of the non-European Others, and their spaces, legitimating their penetration, appropriation and subjugation (a discourse which often overlapped with their infantilization)” (1994:44). This selective effeminization of the Other is quite paradoxical. For example, Christopher Looby argues that normative white manhood depends on a complex set of projected fantasies, for which the Black man serves as the contradictory other. According to Looby (1997:71):
Black males, in white cultural discourses, are often feminized by virtue of their status subordination and by a host of racist denegations (stereotypes of childishness, simplemindedness, etc.), but at the same time, paradoxically, a hyperbolic masculinity is attributed to them by virtue of their mythic investment with phallic enormity, savage and uncontrollable lusts, and so forth. This complex of projective fantasies, an imputed combination of masculine lack and masculine excess, constructs the black man as the contradictory Other of white masculine identity.
According to Rattansi, “constructions and representations of masculinity and femininity were part of a process of cultural and political reconstruction of sexual difference both at ‘home’ and in the colonies, displaying the very complex interplay between the formations of ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’” (1994:44-45). Furthermore, according to Rattansi (1994:45):
The masculinism of the imperial project enabled a reinforcement of the construction of middle-class English women as chaste, frail and in need of protection, a representation which in the colonies and at home could be played off both against the sexually predatory native and the sexually available ‘native’ woman…Moreover, the supposed threat to the white woman in the colonies enabled a legitimation of some of the most repressive measures against ‘natives’, usually at moments when colonial authority seemed particularly vulnerable.
Thus, Rattansi points out how imperial constructions of masculinity enabled the reinforcement of ideas about a certain kind of middle class English woman, and how the supposed threat towards these white women enabled the legitimation of repression against ‘natives,’ showing the formative influence of actual and imagined Others on imperial culture as a whole. [6] Another way to think about this is to consider how the performance of certain kinds of discourses (such as anti-affirmative action discourses or anti-land claims discourses) engage simultaneously in the process of racializing the other while constructing identity in opposition to this exaggerated and distorted difference.
Ruth Frankenberg cites the tremendous risks of failing to critically engage whiteness, including the continued failure to displace it in terms of its status as an unmarked marker. Furthermore, “to leave whiteness unexamined is to perpetuate a kind of asymmetry that has marred even many critical analyses of racial formation and cultural practice” (1997:1). Authors involved in conceptualizing whiteness seek to displace it, resituate, and reemplace it. Whiteness is conceptualized as a process which is plural in nature, as “ensembles of local phenomena complexly embedded in socioeconomic, sociocultural, and psychic interrelations” (1997:1). As a process, whiteness is historically constructed and internally differentiated, contested, and contestable. Further, according to Frankenberg, “whiteness must be viewed both as emergent from multivalent historical processes and through multiple dynamics of alterity” (1997:4). Frankenberg also notes the “fundamental coconstitution of whiteness and racial domination” (1997:4). She emphasizes the making of whiteness: “to view whiteness as “unmarked marker,” as empty signifier, is to universalize a particular, and rather recent, historical moment” (Frankenberg 1997:15). Rather, “whiteness is always constructed, always in the process of being made and unmade. Indeed, its characterization as unmarked marker is itself an “ideological” effect that seeks to cover the tracks of its constructedness, specificity, and localness, even as they appear” (Frankenberg 1997:16). Whiteness is always in the process of being made, rather than self-evident. Furthemore, Frankenberg discusses “the marking of putative others—constituted by means, again, of race, culture, or nation—as sites for the resolution of contradictions faced by white selves, sites onto which that which is feared or desired may be displaced” (1997:10). Significantly, “whiteness makes itself invisible precisely by asserting its normalcy, its transparency, in contrast with the marking of others on which its transparency depends” (Frankenberg 1997:6).
Wellman’s “Minstrel Shows, Affirmative Action Talk, and Angry White Men: Marking Racial Otherness in the 1990s,” focuses on a discussion of anti-affirmative action narratives as minstrelsy, which soothes white anxieties and serves as another way to construct and express white identity. According to Wellman, the “audience members” of this minstrelsy (i.e. white people, men in particular) “have constructed identities for themselves based on narratives of perseverance, toughness, independence, and self-help” (Wellman 1997:318). Wellman also discusses the figures who give credible performances of this minstrelsy: Figures who, through scientific sounding discourse and earnest, measured, authoritative tones, invoke the historical “record”, weaving together “the necessary symbolic and discursive elements” to make the performance credible (Wellman 1997:318). According to Wellman, “The performance is so well executed that very few people detect the distortions, manipulations, and omissions necessary to make it believable” (1997:318).
But, as Wellman states, “The gap between myth and reality is not surprising when one realizes that anti-affirmative action talk is minstrelsy, not serious intellectual political discourse. The traditional minstrelsy is not about facts or scholarly evidence. And neither is its contemporary counterpart” (Wellman 1997:319). According to Wellman, this minstrel show is not just about the facts performed in the skits. Rather, other unacknowledged issues are at stake: economic and cultural dislocations, such as increasing economic inequality, fiscal mismanagement, layoffs. Moreover, “None of the symbols, narratives, or imagery constructed by affirmative action discourse explains these troubles” (Wellman 1997:320). But, as Wellman (1997:321) notes,
that’s not what the talk is supposed to do. Like the earlier period when minstrelsy first emerged, economic and political dislocations are only one part of the story. The other part is that national and personal identity issues were/are surfacing at the same time. At the very moment when the political-economic landscape is being radically reconfigured in disturbing directions, whiteness and maleness are becoming increasingly visible and marked. Thus, political-economic troubles are experienced as racial and gendered, rather than class, grievances.
Wellman discusses how categories of “white” and “male” have been taken for granted as “normal”, and how privileges have been experienced therefore as “normal” rather than as advantages. If these advantages are challenged, they are defended. According to Wellman, this defense is “not because they[the anti-affirmative action minstrels] are antiblack racists, but rather because they are defending normal, routine institutional practices, which, in their experiences, are racially neutral” (Wellman 1997:321). Thus, Wellman (1997:321-322) states,
Given the European American experience—historically and sociologically—equal opportunity for people of colour feels like reverse discrimination. Not because whites literally experience discrimination. They don’t. But because, until recently, “equal opportunity” meant that white male Americans faced virtually no competition from blacks and women. That was “normal.” Normal used to mean exclusivity; it meant white and heterosexual male.
This suggests to me taken for granted, normalized privilege in terms of appropriating Native land. Developers are told the questionable history and legally of the land they purchase, but nonetheless frequently go ahead with development. The Canadian government does not negotiate the return of settled land. Recent disruptions to what had been “normal” and “natural” rather than experienced as racial privilege (i.e. appropriation and development on contested land on the Haldimand Tract) feels uncomfortable and unnatural, i.e. like reverse discrimination, special rights, and so forth. With these disruptions to exclusionary privilege, previously experienced as “normal” and “natural” many (white) Caledonians become upset and angry, feeling as though they are being treated unfairly.
As issues regarding what it means to be white and male become unsettled as whiteness and masculinity lose their status as unmarked categories, they become “either settled symbolically or deflected on the minstrel stage” (Wellman 1997:324). Related to this, and not unlike Rattansi’s discussion about how imperial culture and identities are formed in relation to actual or imagined others of modernity, Wellman discusses how affirmative action discourse enables the production of new (male, white) social selves. Wellman (1997:324) states:
Affirmative action enables Americans to fashion a new set of social selves; to construct whiteness and masculinity as not-affirmative action, or as the opposite of affirmative action. The modern minstrels represent these new identities as being self-made, self-sufficient, self-reliant, independent, hard working, disciplined, and tough. They mark white guys as guys to play by the rules, live by agreements (even when they are unfair), and don’t whine or complain. They are stoic and autonomous.
This provides another lens for thinking about what might be going on with the performance of anti-land claims narratives. In constructing Natives as undeserving recipients of welfare and as criminals (i.e. mayor Marie Trainer’s infamous welfare comment, signs at the April 28th 2006 townspeople protest of the blockade that read “We Agree With Marie” and “We work and pay taxes…How do you contribute”), outspoken (white) Caledonians construct themselves in opposition, as self-sufficient and hard working, and as playing by the rules.
Furthermore, Wellman (1997:324) states,
For white men, affirmative action discourse symbolically settles traumatic private troubles caused by public global-political dislocations. It encourages them to feel superior. Perhaps, at least in this discourse, they can assure themselves that despite the ravages of increased income inequality, loss of jobs, and the devaluation of whiteness and masculinity, they are still—unlike weaker affirmative action recipients—independent, in control, and in charge. Real Men, the discourse tells them, don’t need affirmative action.
In this way, whiteness comes to be marked as not-affirmative action, while Black is constructed as affirmative action recipients: as dependent, undeserving and unqualified. There are compelling and suggestive links between this and the performance of anti-land claims narratives, in which white identity is performed and marked in opposition to constructions of Native racial difference. Furthermore, as Frankenberg notes: “In examining whiteness, in seeking to account for its variable visibility, one must recognize how continual processes of slippage, condensation, and displacement among the constructs “race,” “nation,” and “culture” continue to “unmark” white people while consistently marking and racializing others” (1997:6).
[1] This was the topic of my undergraduate field research, under the supervision of Dr. Eva Mackey and funded by McMaster’s Experiential Education Department through an undergraduate student research award.
[2] See, for example Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford’s new book entitled “Helpless: Caledonia’s Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us”. Blatchford repeatedly asserts that her book is not about land claims.
[3] I.e. on the Media Coop website, for Mayday Magazine, in Platforum, University of Victoria’s graduate student journal, and as the primary author of a forthcoming book chapter entitled “Oh Canada, Our Home on Native Land: Violence, Delegitimization and Dismissal of First Nations Rights to Land and Sovereignty”
[4] Butler uses the phrase white paranoia not to describe totalizing ways of seeing, but as theoretical hyperboles for an aggressive counter-reading.
[5] I have much more data to draw from in relating this, but I left a fair bit out in order to try and stay focused on the readings/theory. I also found Butler’s discussion good to think through in terms of other events of this past year. I.e. the death of Junior Manon by the 52 division police. I also find myself wondering about separating the pieces about violent intentionality from racially structured field of perception to think about police and state violence during the G20.
[6] Andrea Smith makes arguments along these lines in her book “Conquest: Sexual Violence and the American Indian Genocide”. I’m compelled to quote her here, but am resisting the temptation and trying not to turn this into a research paper…As per the instructions…which I am mostly trying to follow…
CFP: North American Anarchist Studies Network Conference
(reposted)
CALL FOR PAPERS!!!
North American Anarchist Studies Network Conference
Toronto, Canada
January 15-16, 2010
Deadline for Proposals: November 1, 2010
The North American Anarchist Studies Network is currently seeking presentations for our second annual conference to be held at the Steel Worker’s Hall in Toronto, Canada. We are seeking submissions from radical academics, independent researchers, community activists, street philosophers and students. We invite those engaged in intellectual work within existing institutions, such as universities, but also those engaged in the production of knowledge beyond institutional walls to share their ongoing work. From the library stacks to the streets, we encourage all those interested in the study of anarchism to submit a proposal.
In keeping with the open and fluid spirit of anarchism, we will not be calling for any specific topics of discussion, but rather are encouraging participants to present on a broad and diverse number of themes- from the historical to the contemporary to the utopian. For inspiration, we have included a number of suggested themes that have been of interest us; we invite you to suggest and submit your own topics, papers, themes, panels and workshops:
* Theorizing Anarchism: Perspectives on Anarchist Studies
* Greening Anarchy: Anarchism and the Environment
* Bridging the Marxist/Anarchist Divide: Is Black and Red Dead?
* Race, Class & Solidarity: Migration Politics
* Indigenous Rights and Politics in (Occupied) North America
* Expanding the Anarchist Canon: Non-Western Anarchism(s)
* The South American ‘New Left’ and Anarchism
* ‘Queering’ Anarchy: Anarchism and LGBTQ Issues
* ‘Revolution’ in the 21st Century: The Meaning of Social Change Today
* Militant Research: Connecting Activism and Academia
* Practicing Anarchy: Organization, Insurrection and Anarchist Social Movements
* Envisioning Alternatives: Anarchist Utopias
* Anarchism and Radical (Dis)ability Politics
* The Greek ‘Crisis’ and Anarchist Responses
* Post-G20 Toronto: Learning from Toronto’s G20 Mobilizations
* Anarchist Cultural Perspectives and Practices
* The Post-Anarchist Challenge?
* Anarchists and Academia: The Perils, Pitfalls and Potentialities of the University
It is our sincere hope that this conference will, to the greatest extent possible, accurately represent the diversity of North American anarchist politics and thought; to that end, we encourage submission(s) in English, French, Spanish and in any other language or on any other topic you feel relevant to this experience and this community.
Send your proposal, including a short abstract, a working title and three keywords that describe your project to the Toronto NAASN Crew at naasntoronto@gmail.com.
For more information on the North America Anarchist Studies Network check out our website at www.naasn.org.
We look forward to hearing from you, organizing with you and, of course, learning from you!
Demystifying Anarchism: A response to the ongoing villainization of anarchists
By Niki Thorne
Over the past month, we have been shown the same several moments of news clips over and over again: black clad anarchists and burning cop cars: anarchism portrayed as destruction, chaos, and mayhem. A number of anarchists have been preemptively arrested, targeted, and held in maximum security prison, some for more than a month as they await drawn out bail hearings. Several of these people were taken from their homes and the homes of friends in pre-dawn raids, before any of the vandalism on Saturday occurred. Crown attorneys are contesting bail, calling for the continuing imprisonment of these activists. While I cannot comment directly on the nature of the evidence due to a publication ban, I do feel confident in asserting that this trial is not about the mere smashing of windows, but has heavy political implications.
In this article, I aim to discuss anarchism within the context of the multiple meanings that it holds for anarchist communities, in an attempt to dispel some of the current and pervasive myths and (mis)representations that surround anarchism. I do so as an anarchist and a researcher, drawing from conversations with friends from southern Ontario, including some of those who are currently being targeted. As of writing, some of those who’s words and ideas went into this document are sitting in maximum security prison on charges of conspiracy, having been denied bail. Others are subject to stringent bail conditions, unable to leave their homes, associate with their friends, or so much as use the internet without the supervision of a surety.
****
To begin: What is anarchism? As historian George Woodcock notes:
“Anarchism, indeed, is both various and mutable, and in the historical perspective it presents the appearance, not of a swelling stream flowing on to its sea of destiny…but rather water percolating through porous grounds—here forming for a time a strong underground current, there gathering into a swirling pool, trickling through crevices, disappearing from sight, and then re-emerging where the cracks in the social structure may offer it a course to run. As a doctrine it changes constantly; as a movement it grows and disintegrates, in constant fluctuation, but it never vanishes.” (1986:18)
Peter Marshall builds on this, stating that “[i]t would be misleading to offer a neat definition of anarchism, since by its very nature it is anti-dogmatic” (1992:3). One of my friends also defined anarchism along these lines, while fixing bicycles in his basement:
“Anarchism is more of a philosophy than a particular ideology or dogma, and that makes the anarchist movement unique, because there isn’t a party line, each comes to it with different ideas and perspectives on what it means. Just because one person wants to see a workers committee running factories and another wants to hunt and forage, doesn’t mean they’re not both challenging power dynamics.”
Part of the beauty of anarchism is the multiplicity of possibilities for definition and action—there is no one way to definitively define anarchist theory or practice. Given this multiplicity I can only speak from my own experiences with and within anarchist communities, primarily drawing on experiences and conversations with my community of friends. However, as George Woodcock notes, consistently at the core of all anarchisms is “a criticism of existing society; a view of a desirable future society; and a means of passing from one to the other” (1986:ii).
There are several themes that run throughout anarchisms, fluid as it may be. First, struggle against hierarchy and authority—against the state and capitalism[1]. This includes confronting and unlearning internalized oppressive behaviours. With this struggle comes a striving towards autonomy and egalitarianism as well as a conscious and ongoing refusal to oppress others[2]. Friends and freeskoolers also emphasized the balance between individual freedom or autonomy and collective responsibility. Self organization was also emphasized: do it yourself (DIY) and direct action as strategies for creating a more egalitarian future society as well as a more egalitarian world in the present, the kind of world in which we wish to live.
Anarchisms are anti-authoritarian: this means organizing against all forms of oppression, including capitalism, colonialism, and the state, which holds ‘legitimate’ claim to violence and serves to uphold the privileges of the elite. As another friend noted:
“There are two basic ideas that unite all anarchisms: struggle against authority and struggle against hierarchy. The basis of united struggle against hierarchy, which translates most often to struggle against any kind of inequality, injustice, prejudice, violence, and struggle against authority…makes anarchism a hard thing to define but allows for so much creativity in alliance building. Every resistance against hierarchy that does not aim to establish a new hierarchy can be viewed as anarchist…Anarchism doesn’t belong to any elitist group of intellectuals—it belongs to anyone refusing authority, anyone who is reclaiming land, fighting against racism, ableism, or sexism.”
He also emphasized the positive ways that anarchist values play out in our lives: through building community, friendships, communication, personal freedom, exploring and defining meanings of consent and “breaking down alienation that is used to make us powerless through work, labour.”
Challenging hierarchy, authority and oppression does not end at challenging systematically oppressive institutions. It is also important to recognize, challenge and do our best to check the privileges we have by virtue of living in a culture of racism and patriarchy. Anti-oppressive practice is an important part of this: commitment to the ongoing process of unlearning racist, sexist, and other oppressive behaviours, and challenging others on their oppressive behaviours as well. Another friend emphasizes self-analysis of power and privilege as part of living resistance. “Part of living my beliefs is trying to learn more about consensus and consent…how to express oneself clearly while not taking away power from others…And understanding that not checking that privilege can disempower others.”
“For a long time, I think I would say that anarchism to me is like the refusal to dominate or oppress another, and the refusal to take another’s freedom, I guess. I think it probably means more than that to me now. I think that anarchy is one of the most beautiful things humans can do. More recently I’ve thought anarchism is finding out who you are and becoming who you are. So much as like, anarchism is about no gods and no masters, to me it’s about finding out about, without these outside sources, what are my beliefs, what do I feel, what do I think. So it’s really about self-discovery.”
Part of this self-discovery involves having autonomy in order to figure these things out for oneself. Yet this process of self-discovery also involves figuring out how one’s actions might disempower others, a consideration of one’s responsibility to others. Many of my friends emphasized this balance between autonomy and collective responsibility. Another friend and I discussed this while he bottled dried herbs on a mat on the living room floor.
“[W]hen I first started off it [anarchism] meant mostly anti-authoritarianism, which meant no top down power structure, but freedom, individual freedom. As I got more in, the responsibility aspect became more prominent. I guess for me, anarchism is the fine balance between freedom and collective responsibility.
Yet another friend emphasized personal autonomy within responsibility to other humans, non humans, and systems of life.
“I think like a big part of it [anarchism] is looking holistically at life, and at taking a broad systemic view of who we are and what our relationships are, and with that perspective, acknowledging and embracing the responsibilities we have to everything that’s alive, and to all the systems we’re a part of. That’s the analysis in the most broad way. It’s also about personal autonomy, and being able and empowered to make healthy choices for myself, but within the responsibility I have to other people, and the systems that keep me alive too. The way that I came into that analysis was definitely not like reading old anarchist philosophy of the Kropotkin era. I was an environmentalist before I became an anarchist, and the way that I view anarchism has been inspired by the way I see ecosystems—each thing plays a part, gives meaning to the whole system, and would be lost without the rest. There’s also some kind of beautiful chaos about that too, like wild nature, part of the romantic spirit about anarchism. I don’t know how to put it into words, it just makes me happy.”
Her reference to Kropotkin is an example of a broader attitude within anarchism: the understanding that anarchism was not invented by the genius of individual thinkers. People studying anarchism might assume a linear projection based on the writings of old dead anarchists, but this would be misleading. Anarchism is more fluid than that, and those who identify as anarchists do not rely on old texts to inform their beliefs: they often come to their beliefs through their own experiences and action. They might read these texts, and take inspiration from them, but texts are not granted primacy over experience. As she noted,
“there’s something else that’s really amazing about anarchism: I didn’t realize I was an anarchist until long after those ideas were already formed—it was something I came to naturally. I suspect that there are twice as many people in the world who are anarchists, or who have anarchist tendencies than who know that they’re anarchists. As far as constellations of political ideologies go, anarchism is the one that resonates most with human life. I didn’t necessarily need a name to put on my perspective. But one day I stumbled upon this one, and it felt useful.”
Intertwined with a rejection of authority and hierarchy is emphasis on autonomy and egalitarianism. Anarchists strive to be autonomous within their responsibilities to other beings, both human and non human, as well as to the communities and life-systems that sustain them. This means consciously working to unlearn oppressive behaviours in a refusal to dominate others.[3] There are various strategies for this refusal to dominate and that serve to promote egalitarianism, including principles of direct democracy, consensus, voluntary association and mutual aid.[4]
Furthermore, anarchists insist that these more egalitarian and inclusive ways of relating and organizing against oppressive structures cannot wait: We cannot wait for some eventual revolution. We need to be organizing in the present and living our lives and acting in ways that are consistent with our visions of how we want the world to be. As another friend stated,
“To me, anarchism is a process, not an end-goal—one of dismantling hierarchy and asserting self-autonomy in organizing in constructive ways. This includes elements of how we lead our lives, our lifestyles, as well as the broader pictures of struggles we identify with and choose to engage in.”
How we live our lives, how we interact with other human and non-human beings in the present, how we share knowledge, and how we engage in research, to whatever extent possible, should be done in ways that are consistent with our aims for a more egalitarian future premised on anti-oppressive and anti-exploitative systems and relationships.
These aspects and values within anarchist theory and practice often remain largely underrepresented and under examined along with other creative elements, given the tendency to (mis)represent anarchism as being solely about destruction and chaos in its challenge to the state and capitalism. Popular representations of anarchism and anarchist actions often focus narrowly on direct action: blockades, occupations and illegal activities. Direct action tends to be interpreted within the rubric of diversity of tactics, which many people (mis)interpret as an uncritical free for all: brick throwing, fire-bombing, violent teenage angst. In fact, smashing windows is perhaps better describe as symbolic action.
Direct action does involve confrontation, and might involve taking space, blocking traffic, or destroying something. One interviewee defined direct action as “where you skip the middle man, and you do exactly what needs to happen for your goals to be achieved.” CrimethInc. Workers’ Collective describes direct action as follows:
“Practicing direct action means acting directly to meet needs, rather than relying on representatives or choosing from prescribed options…actions that cut out the middleman entirely to solve problems without mediation.” (2005:12)
David McNally characterizes direct action in terms of politics of self activity. He writes:
“the direct action approach is based upon a politics of self-activity. Steering away from appeals to politicians, bureaucrats or other elites to ‘help’ the downtrodden by doing something for them, it demands and mobilizes, encouraging [people] to act for themselves” (McNally 2002:243).
In this way, direct action is related to Do-It-Yourself [DIY] culture within anarchist communities. DIY might involve growing one’s own food, patching one’s own clothes—anything that encourages less reliance on corporations and government, and encourages more reliance on one’s own abilities and community. DIY might take parasitic forms: for example, living off the scraps of wasteful grocery corporations through dumpster diving, all the while planning how to be sustainable as autonomous communities if civilization falls and grocery stores cease to exist. Other examples of collective DIY actions include movements like food not bombs, reclaim the streets, and critical mass. Holtzman, Hughes and Van Meter (2007) argue that these actions move beyond creating temporary autonomous zones, and create collaboratively produced public spaces. They do this without asking power to address their needs, and they do it without seeking permission.
As much as anarchism is about critiquing the systems that oppress us, it is also about creatively imagining alternatives and bringing them into being. These alternatives, no matter how small, are not insignificant. Holtzman, Hughes and Van Meter (2007) argue that DIY culture is effective in empowering marginalized persons and communities while at the same time providing a means to subvert or transcend capitalism—a way of withdrawing while constructing and experimenting with other forms of social organizing. These alternatives are more than just symbols. They are spaces for empowerment, non-alienating production, mutual aid, and struggle. Holtzman, Hughes and Van Meter argue that through emphasis on direct participation, “DIY reoriented power often fosters a newly found awareness of individual and collective ability to reproduce social change (2007:48). The politicization that occurs through this process is incredibly important: the process of figuring out one’s identity, building community, and fighting collectively against oppression has a profound effect on wellbeing and emotional health[5]. As they note:
“By moving within and expanding on DIY culture, participants have been able to escape the idea that there is no alternative. As a distinct form of anticapitalist struggle, DIY culture has provided a means of circumventing the power of capitalist structures, while at the same time creating substantive alternatives…These and similar activities can serve as positive examples of new forms of social relations and within them, new worlds” (Holtzman, Hughes, Van Meter 2007:54).
***
Attempts are being made to reduce and delegitimize anarchist ideas and actions to unthinking, criminal vandalism and unaccountability. On the contrary, anarchism is all about accountability: accountability to other living beings and the systems that sustain us. It’s about criticizing and challenging those people and institutions who ignore these responsibilities for profit and power. Anarchism is not something to blindly fear. Rather, anarchism involves a multiplicity of ideas and strategies to strive to eliminate all forms of oppression and create greater autonomy and healthy communities, within our responsibilities to other living beings and the systems that sustain us all.
[1] Some folks call themselves “anarcho-capitalists”, but just about everyone I’ve spoken with thinks this is ridiculous, and that anarchist and capitalist perspectives are irreconcilable.
[2] Of course, even with this conscious refusal we still oppress others in ways of which we are not even completely cognizant. We still inhabit positions of privilege and cannot ever completely shed that though we do our best to recognize and confront privilege.
[3] See previous footnote.
[4] Direct democracy is in contrast with electoral democracy, and is a practice whereby citizens participate directly in decision making rather than relying on elected officials. Voluntary association speaks to the idea that people should have the autonomy to associate and disassociate freely, whether we are referring to collectives, cooperatives, municipalities or federations. A theory of mutual aid, or human solidarity was outlined by Peter Kropotkin (1902) as a refutation of the ideals of social Darwinists, who worked to create ‘scientific’ support for capitalism, racism and imperialism under positivistic faith in progress. In contrast to the reification of ‘survival of the fittest’ and individual competition, Kropotkin argued that mutual aid and cooperation were more significant in the evolution of a species, and that collective struggle against outside forces was of far greater significance in evolution compared with individual struggle. Today the term is used to denote a perspective of supporting each other in a given community rather than engaging in competition.
[5] This theme came through in conversations, in contrast with prior feelings of utter helplessness. I didn’t probe as much into this, just listening as people felt like sharing, but I think it is an important area for future consideration. In the meantime, for more on radical approaches to mental health check out the Icarus Project: Navigating the space between brilliance and madness. http://theicarusproject.net/
The G20 in Toronto: An open letter to family and friends who weren’t there.
By Niki Thorne
Introduction
What went on in Toronto during the G20 was incredibly traumatic for many of us. We lived under fear of being beaten at peaceful protests, of being thrown into jail for nothing more than walking around in the city. We were scared when our friends didn’t come home or return phone calls because in some cases they had been grabbed from the streets and thrown into unmarked vans by plainclothed police officers who didn’t identify themselves. We had tasers pointed at us, we were shot at with ‘less lethal munitions’ at point blank range. Some of us were sexually harassed or assaulted by groups of armed police officers while locked up, with no recourse. We were pulled out of bed by police who had broken into our homes without showing us warrants. Some at gunpoint. The city was unsafe. We are still traumatized. Those of you who were not here: We need you to read this. We need you to realize what happened, and we need you to take it seriously.
First, why did we even protest the G20?
The G20 is the meeting of 20 leaders from the 20 richest countries in the world. They meet to discuss and implement economic policies. There is no administrative body, and the G20 is accountable to no one. The one thing that came out of this G20 meeting in Toronto was an agreement on ‘austerity measures’.
In a nutshell, austerity measures is another way of saying cuts to public spending in order to bail out banks and corporations, which are the reasons for economic crisis in the first place.
A lot of people have been talking about neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is a cluster of policies or an ideology based on belief in the free market: that the market can best regulate itself, and should not be subject to interference. This includes taking for granted the assumption that capitalism is a good thing and that it’s necessary. Capitalist enterprises such as corporations involve increasing profit by whatever means necessary: the responsibility of corporations is to their stockholders, not to those who are affected by corporate policies.
For example, a U.S. based oil company with operations in Ecuador is responsible by law to its stockholders, and not to those who reside in the area of its operations. Thus, as the company flourishes, people with stocks make money, while people who live near the toxic waste of polluting plants, where safety regulations are typically not enforced, get cancer. [I could link a lot of articles but here is a link for some documentary that I think get the point across: “Crude”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duFXuRnd2CU; “The Corporation”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y ]
Neoliberal policies and practices have resulted in the economic crisis that we’re currently in the midst of–where folks are laid off work, factories close, or companies move overseas where they can capitalize on more cheap labour to increase their profits.
Rather than questioning the roots and assumptions behind neoliberal policies, the G20 leaders have decided that the solution for neoliberalism, is, in effect, more neoliberalism. Rather than taxing banks or corporations, they are taking public money to bail out these institutions, which are by their nature unsustainable. Put simply, this is taking money from the poor, to bail out corporations and banks, which result in more money for those who own the companies or the people who own a lot of stocks.
This is a big part of why we protest the G20. Because we disagree with a small population imposing policies that make a few richer, while increasing the divide between the rich and the poor, and continuing to harm the majority of the world’s population and the environment.
Background: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whatever your opinions are about what happened throughout the G20 protests, there are some rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by Canadian law. These include but are not limited to:
- In section 2, the freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of belief, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.
- In section 7, the right to life, liberty and security of the person
- In section 8, the right from unreasonable search and seizure
- In section 9, the freedom from arbitrary detainment or imprisonment
- In section 10, the right to legal counsel
- In section 11, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Context: What happened in Toronto during the G20?
The Debate on Police Reactions
Popular debate right now seems to be centered around whether the police acted in an acceptable manner towards protesters in Toronto. There has been debate as to whether the protesters deserved what they got. There has been talk about ‘some good and some bad’ on both sides.
Throughout the Week
All week long demonstrations took place to highlight issues such as ecological justice, gender justice, immigrant rights, and indigenous rights. Throughout the week (i.e. before any vandalism on Saturday), citizens felt the increase in police presence and increased intimidation. Contrary to section eight, police arbitrarily searched people on their way to lawful demonstrations in public places. Again contrary to section eight, police confiscated items such as signs, banners, and flags throughout the week, at peaceful, lawful demonstrations, which is illegal according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Activists were ID’d, targeted, and profiled throughout the week. By law, ID only needs to be given if one is being detained, and we have the right to not be detained arbitrarily. A reason is expected for any detainment. On Friday, a deaf bystander was beaten and arrested when he did not respond to verbal commands from police officers.
[There are many videos documenting this throughout the week, but here is one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZgjX5vHt2o ]
Saturday & Sunday: Vandalism versus Violence
On Saturday, for several hours, a group of several hundred people including ‘the Black Block’ broke away from the labour march, and continued towards the fence. Windows of corporations were smashed. Windows of several small independent businesses including a jewelry store and a strip club were also vandalized. Police cars were set on fire.
To be clear, whether you support or disagree with these actions[i], they are acts of vandalism. Whether you support or disagree with the actions of the black block, the vandalism of a couple hundred people is not equivalent to the presence and actions of 19,000 armed police and a security budget of 1.2 billion tax dollars in Toronto, police who repeatedly ignored their own laws throughout the week in a complete suspension of civil rights. Additionally, whether you support or disagree, recall that the police crackdown did not occur at this march. Rather, this crackdown occurred at other times, other days even, in other places throughout the city. Those rounded up included passersby, transit workers, and mainstream reporters as well as others who had absolutely nothing to do with any vandalism on Saturday. If anyone taken during these mass arrests was part of the black block, then it was purely by chance.
Whether you support or condemn the actions of the black block, these actions are not equivalent to the largest mass arrests in Canadian history, in which over 1000 people were arrested contrary to section 9 which states that citizens are to be free from arbitrary arrests and detainment. Vandalism is not equivalent to beating people at peaceful demonstrations with batons, and other weapons [http://www.vimeo.com/12903946 ]. It is not comparable to threatening, sexually harassing, and sexually assaulting women in the temporary detention centre [journalist Amy Miller speaks about sexual harassment in the detention centre: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcXhEd_mDt4&feature=related ]. It cannot be compared with armed, night time raids, in which guns were pulled on sleeping people [http://mostlywater.org/node/91779 ]. It can’t be compared with police shooting less lethal munitions point blank into peaceful crowds[ii] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiLt40d_AbU&feature=player_embedded ].
Despite public pressure, Toronto city council has voted to commend the police for the way they have handled themselves in Toronto, and downplay calls for a public inquiry into the behaviours of the police.
Some people have been brandishing about the word ‘fascism’. This seems really extreme: how can we take these allegations of fascism seriously?
People protesting the neoliberal policies of the G20 in Toronto this weekend have been treated in ways that can be compared to the violent suppression of political dissent in fascist governments. It does seem like a very strong claim, and hardly seems believable, based on what Canadians are taught to believe about their rights in Canada[iii]. The violent suppression of dissent and the attempted silencing of the media (alternative media and mainstream reporters alike were intimidated, beaten, and arrested throughout the weekend) that has occurred in Toronto during the week of the G20 is almost unbelievable, to the point that it seems made up. It simply does not fit with what most people believe about human rights in Canada. We have been taught to believe that Canada is a place where people are treated fairly, where their rights are not violated at the drop of a hat, unlike elsewhere, out there, where people do not have rights and are treated unfairly.
The word fascism conjures up images of Nazi-Germany. The kinds of images that spring to mind are the scapegoating and mass executions of those who dissent: Jews, scapegoated as vermin responsible for economic crisis and the troubles of the majority of the population. Jews, queers, and political dissidents rounded up and executed. Gas chambers. The SS. Book burnings.
This kind of violence escapes comprehension. We think of it as something that happens elsewhere, and we think it could never happen here. Sometimes I think we forget that those caught up in these extreme practices of violence and genocide didn’t necessarily believe it could happen to them either, or that they could ever be involved in such things. That’s why it’s important to pay attention to how fascism begins, and how it is perpetuated.
One element of fascism is the violent suppression of political dissent. Fascist government and those who support them tend to believe in strong leadership and unity of ideology. Beliefs that don’t match what is dominant and accepted are simply not tolerated. People who do not conform to those beliefs are silenced. Activists are always among the first to go.
In Toronto this weekend, activists–those who vocally disagree with policies we see as harmful to humans overall and to the planet that sustains us—have been rounded up, illegally searched, detained, beaten, and mass arrested. We have been threatened and harassed by 19,000 people permitted to use violence, armed with guns, tasers, tear gas, rubber bullets, and batons as well as other experimental weapons. Some police seemed perfectly ok with their new powers to arrest and detain without cause [i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMTm3QRwEc ]. Others seemed to be reluctantly following orders. Despite apparent reluctance, however, they did not intervene when their colleagues were engaging in violence against unarmed, peaceful demonstrators.
Following orders, obeying authority without questioning the legitimacy of the commands and information given, is part of the slippery slide into fascism. ‘Following orders’ was in fact the excuse of many Nazi’s involved in the persecution and mass executions of over six million people during the Holocaust. During the Nuremburg trials ‘following orders’ was not deemed to be a legitimate excuse for violence and genocide.
While I am not suggesting using that using less lethal munitions (i.e. rubber bullets) and beating and criminalizing activists in Toronto is equivalent to the Holocaust, I am suggesting that there are certain alarming parallels with the beginnings of fascism and that we need to be incredibly cautious and wary. We need to be informed and cautious about the directions in which our society is heading. Increased police presence and militarization at the Vancouver Olympics and the Toronto G20 is not an exception. It is the beginnings of increased police and militarization policies set out by NATO. I think it would be very dangerous to let this become the new norm.
Not speaking out against atrocities in their beginning stages is something that allows repression to flourish. Not thinking critically about what is going on, and speaking and acting out against rights violations is part of being complicit in these violations. A complicit, silent population that does not pay attention or resist allows the development and rise of fascism. Another element in the rise of fascist governments is effective propaganda campaigns. As your niece, daughter, cousin, granddaughter, sister or friend, I implore you to be cautious, and think critically about what you are told, especially when it comes to scapegoating relatively powerless people to justify the violent actions of those in power.
I love you, and hope we can talk more about this soon. xoxo
~~Niki Thorne
Endnotes//Important points that we can discuss later:
[i] While I did not personally participate in any vandalism or arson, I will not condemn anyone who did. While I definitely agree that these kinds of actions deserve honest criticism in terms of their effects and efficacy, (like any other tactic,) I believe that the most effective place for this conversation is during the planning and lead up, and that these conversations need to happen with respect. I would be happy to discuss this more with family, but I’m only including it as a footnote here, because I feel as though getting stuck in these conversations draws attention away from the more fundamental issues, (to which I feel the question of the legitimacy of vandalism is ultimately irrelevant) and I want to start by coming to an understanding on the issues that I feel are fundamental—I would be happy to discuss this (and probably respectfully disagree on it) later.
[ii] These were not isolated events, but became common place throughout the weekend. I was at these peaceful events, where without provocation police grabbed people from the crowd, tackling them to the ground and hitting them with batons. I had tasers shot at me from about a foot away. The shots that go off it that last video about the peaceful jail solidarity demo: that was fired just feet away from me to the right. I saw the wounds on the girl who was shot point blank with the ‘less lethal munitions’. I want to emphasize: this wasn’t a few isolated incidences with a few bad cops. This was occurring all over the city, and to people who didn’t break any laws. To people’s families. To your family.
This brings me to another point that I know will be more controversial and that we can discuss at a later time: the role of policing. And the uses to which it is frequently put—usually more visible in parts of the world other than Canada.
Overall, we are taught that police serve a beneficial role in society: that they uphold law and order, and that they serve and protect. In Toronto, during the G20, it was easy to see through this. Police, who are supposed to uphold the law, broke their own laws while telling us that it was for our own good, and for our own safety. And almost all the injuries that occurred throughout the G20 protests were caused by police. [Here is a story by the medics: http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/story/medics-speak-out-against-systemic-roots-police-violence-during-g20/4065 ]. During the G20, policing was used to repress citizens and to protect 20 leaders from the 20 richest countries in the world. The way the police reacted during these demonstrations was not an exception. A young black man was beaten to death by the police in Toronto two months ago. During the chaos of hurricane Katrina police shot unarmed people on a bridge. In other parts of the world though, the statistics of police shooting people, including children, in the back is absolutely overwhelming, and again, it doesn’t even seem believable. We need to think critically about the benefits of giving a group of people guns and power, and we need to think critically about the uses to which this can be put, and whether it is to the benefit of citizens at all.
[iii] Again, this is perhaps a conversation for another time, but throughout my research and experiences it has become clear that some of the things we are taught about Canada are simply untrue. We are taught that everyone is equal in Canada for example. However, the legal rights of indigenous peoples in Canada are repeatedly denied and pushed aside. I would be happy to elaborate on this at some later point. For now if you want to know more, see http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/2415
On Police Intimidation in Toronto
In the past two weeks, I have experienced much that I feel has designed to break me, to silence me, and to scare me into submission.
I have had police break into my home, terrorize my friends, pull a gun on my neighbour, and tear a dear friend from our lives. I have been stopped, detained, and searched multiple times without cause or consent: our car swarmed in the middle of a busy Toronto intersection, told to get out, put my hands on the car and to spread my legs while being patted down and called “sweetie”. I have had perfectly legal items, like ear plugs, confiscated while my items have been illegally searched, and other items broken by the police, who have repeatedly affirmed that I have no rights and that they do not care that they are breaking their own laws.
I have had batons swung in my direction and tasers pointed me during peaceful demonstrations, striking those next to me, while chanting “We are peaceful, how ’bout you?”. We have been shot at with rubber bullets and tear gas at close range during peaceful assemblies. We have been boxed in and threatened by heavily armed riot cops in situations where police have already demonstrated their overwhelming unaccountability. My friends have been beaten, arrested and detained, most without being given any cause. Some have disappeared into unmarked vans, and have not been heard from for days, as they are delayed legal counsel and even medical attention. Some have been targeted as scapegoats, political prisoners, and are still being held as terrorists in maximum security prison complexes. Some have been denied bail for thought crimes, words, seemingly without consideration of the merits of the evidence for their ‘conspiracy’ charges. I have heard them demeaned and insulted by allegations that the crown repeatedly asserts are not political in nature.
Despite all this, I will not be intimidated. I will not stop calling for equality and anti-oppression. I will not stop standing in solidarity with those who’s rights are trampled for profit. Condemnations of profit over people is not a vague, insubstantial allegation. In the case of the G20 meetings in Toronto, tax money has been used to repress those who resist and to bail out banking institutions while billions worldwide suffer. A smaller, more concrete example from my own research and friendships: land is stolen from Six Nations for the benefit of the developers and the Crown while Haudenosaunee people are denied their rights under the Haldimand proclamation and their forms of governance are continually interfered with, including armed RCMP raids to depose confederacy governance in the 1920′s and 50′s. [http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/2415]
This current situation in Toronto is political. It is ongoing. It affects everyone’s rights, not just those who are targeted. Accepting these most recent repressions sets an alarming precedent for the future of free speech and social justice. I encourage all to research and critically interrogate what has been happening in Toronto. Look through the rhetoric, consider the interests at stake, and speak out for human dignity.
Do not be fooled by the portrayal of anarchism as mayhem, chaos and violence. Anarchism is about building communities, about thinking critically, about challenging systems of oppression, about mutual aid, about respect for all human beings. Sometimes this respect for oppressed communities worldwide involves strong condemnations of those who make powerful decisions that affect the rest of the world: government and transnational corporations. This includes condemnation of the police and military, who enforce these decisions, upholding our current unsustainable and oppressive world systems at gunpoint.
On Saturday, the news has focused on footage of some expressing their condemnation by smashing windows of corporations and burning police cars. (This is not what those currently in prison have been charged with by the way. Again, they have been charged for words, not deeds.) However, this condemnation takes many forms, and indeed requires many forms. Write your stories of repression, and share them. Work to hold those who perpetuate any forms of oppression accountable. I have included a number of links to facilitate coming together in our struggle for a more just world. We’re still strong, and though we’ve been hurt, we’re even stronger than before. Supporting and caring for one another through the shared trauma these violations only brings us closer. I wish you all the best, and want to affirm I include all who all who fight for a more just world among my friends and allies.
Love and rage,
~~Niki Thorne
To begin, I encourage people report all violations and police repression to the centre for police accountability. Lawyers are involved in this project.
http://c4pa.ca/drupal/csvp
For more background and updates on these events, check the Toronto Media coop frequently:
http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/
For more on me, I have a blog:
http://curiouspraxis.wordpress.com
As of 10 am yesterday movement defense committee lawyers confirmed that over 900 people have been arrested–officially doubling the number arrested during the War Measures Act.
