pacifism and privilege

August 28, 2007 at 5:04 am (anti-oppression, anti-racism, Uncategorized)

today i am thinking about what is violence and non violence. maybe this is because i have had in the past month a few conversations with activists by telephone and email who tell me that their pacifism is central to the community work that they want to do.

well i dont consider myself a pacifist although i have worked side by side with them. and i am not sure i would call myself non-violent. there are plenty of times that i have seen and can imagine when direct physical violence maybe the most nonviolent choice available. sometimes the most nonviolent thing you can do is throw a rock at a tank.

both of these guys are white young–they have spent alot of their adult life trying to understand their christianity and their role in the world and they feel that through this discernment that pacifism is their path. but i think that white pacifism first world pacifism has a lot to answer for itself.

why is a boy with a rock more violent more destructive in these guys view than the racism and sexism that they perpetuate and support daily? i know what these guys would say, to be fair, that they are white and male, they were born that way, and yes they have privilege and so they have to ask themselves what is the best way to use their privilege? since they can’t get rid of it.

but i think that that conclusion by these guys is suspect. i mean the reason that pacifism seems so viable to these guys is because they are white and male and straight, the world has been created and shaped and constructed and destroyed in order that they will succeed. everything is constructed to make it as easy as possible for them to feel safe and secure and protected. they can’t really see it because they have been told that this is natural , the divine order of the universe, etc.

to be fair, i dont have a problem with people deciding not to pick up a stone. (the stone is a metaphor for the entire physical violence pantheon.) but i do have a problem with a first world guy, traveling to the third world and refusing to work with people unless they are nonviolent. my question is: who defined nonviolence? why is it okay to work with organizations or communities which are sexist or racist as long as these org’s and com’s choose to never pick up a stone and throw it? what if the community says yes it is nonviolent and of course it will defend itself. what if it is time that we discovered a new definition for nonviolence.

i mean a definition of violence. i think that the worst and most pernicious types of violence are structural. racism sexism heterosexism classism. i mean poverty kills more people than war. the lifetime effects of racism and sexism in individuals are all the symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder. a hypervigilance, flashbacks, lower self-esteem and worth, etc. but it is isnt even post traumatic stress disorder…it is continuing stress disorder. the experience of oppression by poc and women and queer and poor and others is the experience of being in a war, in a cold war, in a cold guerrilla war when your enemies are invisible but deadly. and you hear through the grapevine about a woman has been attacked, a struggling family, a life stolen and you know that could have been you this time. and it reminds you to ‘smile pretty and watch your back’. it reminds you to stay vigilant. you know the enemy would rather that all your people be dead than have authentic power in the world. you watch a white guy walk down the street and you study him to see if he has a gun, if he is a cop.

so it feels to me that white boy pacifism has its priorities wrong. white boy pacifism tries to use all their privilege to stop colored people from being violent. and isnt that what being a white boy is all about?

it is like the michael vick hullabaloo. all of a sudden when a rich talented black man is cruel to animals, everyone is on the side of the dogs. where did all these animal rights activists come from? when did so many journalist suddenly become peta members? what do they think the animals are treated like before these journalists sit down to their atkins approved meal of tortured animals of different species.

when you use michael vicks cruel and violent treatment of dogs as the rationale to perpetuate the dangerous image of blacks (no matter who financially successful) as essentially violent scary uncivilized–then you have used racism (and your white privilege) to protect the animals. and as audre lorde said there is no hierachy of oppressions.

here is the problem: everytime we use our privilege to get in the way of violence, we are splitting communities.

what do i mean by that? well, let me give an example: imagine you are a white boy, living in a community of color, and you see the cops harassing a black boy. so you go over to the cops and you are hoping that because you are white, the cops will leave the black kid alone once they see that you are watching. maybe you even talk to the cops try to show them that violence is not the answer. lets say your tactic works and the cops drive away. the black kid says thank you you saved his life. and you have done a good deed for the day. everyone wins right?

well, im not so sure: you just taught everyone there a lesson. that white skin is power. and is white power really a lesson that you are trying to teach?

so if you use your whiteness as a tool of nonviolence you may want to rethink your tactic. that is if you arent comfortable advocating for white power.

yes you can get rid of your privilege. but there is no quick fix. it is a long and arduous process. i used to think that you could never get rid of your privilege. but you can. you can de-center yourself your race. you can imagine new ways to build relationships and empower communities. i have seen glimpses of this in people. you can stop trying to find ways to hold onto your privilege by telling yourself that your privilege helps people who have less privilege than you do. peoples and communities are authentically empowered when we decolonize our lives, dismantle privilege, and meet them as equals. you cannot save lives with your privilege. you dont save lives. people save their own lives. sometimes they are willing to use you as a tool temporarily. sometimes they pick up a rock.

they may agree to be nonviolent and thus you are willing to work with them. but they want you because of your whiteness, because of all the violence that your represents. and they want you despite your whiteness, despite all the violence that you represent.

i have been to some pretty weird meetings, where white boys stood up and talked about nonviolence as the only way to a peaceful society, when they were the most violent person in the room.

maybe white boys can think of nonviolence as the new ‘n’ word. everyone gets to say it but you.

Advertisements

Permalink 4 Comments

naomi klein says:

August 18, 2007 at 11:46 pm (anti-oppression)

 thanks suzanna:

Klein says: “I think it matters that we had ideas all along, that there were always alternatives to the free market. And we need to retell our own history and understand that history, and we have to have all the shocks and all the losses, the loss of lives, in that story, because history didn’t end. There were alternatives. They were chosen, and then they were stolen. They were stolen by military coups. They were stolen by massacres. They stolen by trickery, by deception. They were stolen by terror.

We who say we believe in this other world need to know that we are not losers. We did not lose the battle of ideas. We were not outsmarted, and we were not out-argued. We lost because we were crushed. Sometimes we were crushed by army tanks, and sometimes we were crushed by think tanks. And by think tanks, I mean the people who are paid to think by the makers of tanks. Now, most effective we have seen is when the army tanks and the think tanks team up. The quest to impose a single world market has casualties now in the millions, from Chile then to Iraq today. These blueprints for another world were crushed and disappeared because they are popular and because, when tried, they work. They’re popular because they have the power to give millions of people lives with dignity, with the basics guaranteed. They are dangerous because they put real limits on the rich, who respond accordingly. Understanding this history, understanding that we never lost the battle of ideas, that we only lost a series of dirty wars, is key to building the confidence that we lack, to igniting the passionate intensity that we need.”

to see whole speech see: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/16/3219/

Permalink Leave a Comment

are the cops in our heads and hearts?

August 4, 2007 at 11:20 pm (anti-classism, anti-oppression, anti-racism, anti-sexism, women of color)

If our commitment to organizing is to build with those who are most marginalized, if we want to prioritize poor and working class women of color in the U S, most of whom are responsible for the care and survival of children and/or other family members, then it is essential that we look for alternative models to movement-building. We must also recognize another major challenge observed from outside the U.S.: the dismantling of “community”, social connections and relationships of solidarity and love. If we are faced with these conditions, it seems crucial that we try forms of organizing that center the daily experiences of those caught in the crossfire of all forms of oppression. From Latin America we can draw examples of the gigantic efforts for daily survival by the oppressed, an effort that involves strengthening the communitarian spaces and ties they are constructing and re-creating every day. It is not enough to center poor and working class women and queer folks of color’s experiences to organize around if the mode of organizing is still very similar to how male dominated labor or U.S. style community organizing operates. In this model only those who have the privilege and/or obligation of being full-time organizers because they are single without dependants, or fathers who do very little parenting, or people who can afford to pay others to do the caretaking of their families can actively participate, let alone lead our movements. Ultimately, political involvement that comes at the expense of our relationships with loved ones and the larger community is not truly libratory (19).

–rojas

Permalink Leave a Comment