At the 2009 National Bash Back! Convergence in Chicago, IL Queer and Trans Autonomous / Anti-Authoritarian / Anarchist People of Color (QTAPOC) caucused and came up with a list of points for the white axillary to discuss, think about, etc.
1. Having non-western culture experiences is not the same as being POC.
2. When planning conferences or doing anything, think about gentrification. Gentrification workshop while having gentrifying shows.
3. What does it mean to date a POC
4. Does gender as well as skin tone affect the relationship?
5. Do you find yourself hearing/making racist comments if there are not obvious POCs in the room?
6. How do you treat your friends depending on skin. What are your expectations of your POC friends?
7. Why are self-proclaimed “radical” spaces & collectives often only mostly white? Besides the false assumption that POCs don’t care.
8. Reconciling doing activism that should involve being an ally to POCs (us) socializing & organizing being done by all mostly white people
9. Why are radical spaces in POC neighborhoods mostly white and sometimes looking like hipsters come into them / instead of being accessible/inviting to the POCs in the neighborhood
10. Talk about how gender is informed by race and pluralize queer identities. how does misogination inform notions of queer.
11. Personally, I have felt responsible for being the barometer for my white fellows as to whether or not complex racial situations are OK or not, whether they need to be addressed or not.
12. Saying things like “fuck culture” when it comes to ‘radical issues’ like female mutilations in Africa, implying that it’s OK for white privileged Americans to enter “other cultures” and tell them mutilations are “not okay” you can’t just be feminist and not actively anti-racist or anti-nationalist.
13. It seems that some white radicals take security less seriously because they come from their place of privilege + POC’s have a hard time getting their security needs met and are met with resistance
14. What it means to be an ally vs. what it means to be in solidarity. POCs- defining what ally means not whites saying what it is.
15. Cultural appropriation of indigenous genders “two-spirits”… after events of white hipster variation only.
16. Cultural appropriation dreadlocks/Mohawks (styles).
17. Class privileged nature of the convergence space.
18. What’s an anti-racist campaign look like? Where’s BB lacking??
19. Consciously seek out knowledge and theory by POC / queer female writers!
20. Accept experience as a valid form of radical consciousness-raising. Don’t be an intellectual elite anarchist.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
#1 by dependencytheory on June 10, 2009 - 5:35 am
I have remarks on a few of these questions specifically. I understand this post is the fruit of a dialog from an APOC caucus to a (white) group, but the lack of internal critical politics that would have shaped these questions differently is apparent.
Number 3 (interracial dating) is interesting to explore on both sides of the spectrum. I’ve seen an especially defensive approach on this issue from APOCs, filled with nice but avoidant presentations of dating being about attraction, people, etc. Lost is a real analysis of the cultural or political implications and statements in their choices. Oftentimes these situations call for a hard examination of POC ourselves… white spaces we choose, people we associate with, subcultures we place ourselves within. APOCs seem to not be entirely comfortable talking about our own choices of dating whites and what that means, or says about American ideals of assimilation, but are okay with asking whites to examine what it means to date POC. By surrendering our agency, we avoid having a vital internal conversation.
“Why are spaces & collectives often only mostly white” is a classic Martin-Malcolm question. A better inquisition for anarchists of color is how are we, as people of color, intimately connected with radical communities of color and involved in organizing in the community? Do APOCs have enough credibility in our own communities (if indeed the APOCs in question have any relation to a community of color, another conversation entirely) to organize there and involve the community on our strength as organizers? One would think, if we APOCs have the community connections, three of us could draw 2-10 other POC from the community to a meeting and easily be the majority, and do so regularly. Never have I seen it happen (nor, as I can guess, is the point to hold a majority at a meeting), but perhaps it is easier as POC to change the conversation to whites’ dumb behavior rather than exercising our own community connections, or exposing our lack of credibility in COC, to make these spaces what we want (if wanting a white space to be more diverse is your bag, of course). This question does speak to a particular class/personal orientation worth debating.
Similarly, several other questions bear a need for self-reflection. If there is truly a concern for whites gentrifying areas or about spaces (formed by whites) in COC not being of said community, one has to wonder how APOCs internally reconcile the contradiction of essentially being seen by the communities in question (like it or not) as the black and brown collaborators. Whites gentrifying areas is cause for organizers of color in many cities to hold protests or boycott these hubs (possible explanation for lack of community involvement?). A more important question to ask is why POC affiliated with/dating/friends with such whites want them to merely “think” about these issues, and do POC see themselves as complicit by affiliating with incursions and being part of such spaces? Having COC involved in actions (gentrification and occupying meeting spaces) that are objectionable does not make these actions more representative of the community, or make them okay.
These were just a few responses, and they are why I largely dismiss 20. 20 presupposes experience is inherently valid because that is how you feel. Nonsense. Too often anarchists are unable and unwilling to talk about their emotions and reactions in relationship to our politics. We wall ourselves off with defenses about our experiences instead of remembering we are products of a world in which our uniqueness and individuality is sold to us as a value of the freedom in this society, and as if our experience is somehow worthy of exception compared to that of oppressed people internationally. We throw “intellectual” as an insult for being too fearful of criticism or to examine that, quite possibly, our ideas could be wrong, hasty, reactionary, apolitical or made to selfishly suit our personal, social, sexual, etc. needs and no one else. No, your experience is not a valid form of radical consciousness-raising; though one can have consciousness raised by an experience, consciousness-raising is a political exercise borne of struggle, discussion, study (which involves that intellectual elite practice called reading) and understanding we as people of color (particularly English-speaking POC) must see our experience in a political and global way.
This was a very good post.