From Anti-Politics - By Dunash
I am a light-skinned non-Arab descended from indigenous North Africans—a Berber. Unlike my parents, who were desperate to become Americans in every possible way—the typical children of immigrants—I am proud of my North African heritage. I had to learn about it from speaking to my increasingly forgetful grandfather. My parents had Arabic names that were changed to Anglo names, either just before or just after their families came to the U.S. I got my American name at birth, my legal name. My grandfather told me my Arabic name when I was 15. My real name is Berber, but I had to wait until I was 20 to learn that. By then I was already an anarchist, an anti-nationalist internationalist, so the fact that I had three names, each one describing a smaller community, meant little. |
 |
It wasn’t until about ten years ago that I heard about something called Anarchist People of Color. This APOC thing sounded good. My experiences among anarchists had been that virtually nobody looked that different from each other, sounded different from each other, or talked about different things. If there were any other People of Color at the meetings, demonstrations, or events organized by anarchists, they were keeping quiet. There were a few dark-skinned folks, but they wore the same clothing and had the same tattoo styles as the rest of the (presumably) white anarchists. They were invisible as POC.
If anyone brought up the issue of racism, almost everyone else started getting nervous and defensive. “But we’re anarchists,” they’d say, as if that was enough to address the different ways racism works, the way it flows into just about all interactions between white people and POC in the U.S. It’s amazing how guilt works on people.
So I happily supported APOC and eagerly awaited some of them to come to my area. By the time I went to a few workshops, I no longer felt so supportive. I thought that APOC was a caucus within a larger anarchist/activist framework, working to bring an awareness of the particular problems that face POC within American culture, to help anarchists and activists to deal with their unconscious racist assumptions about POC, to bring more sensitivity to white anarchists. My understanding was that this would make the anarchist/activist scene stronger and more attractive to POC. When I sat in the meetings of APOC and listened to their presentations, however, I got the feeling that 1. they were promoting the beginnings of a separatist agenda, perhaps one day working in coalition with white anarchists/activists—if the whites were “worthy,” 2. that they had a definition of POC based on racist American assumptions—the One-Drop Rule and the strictly visual cue of skin-tone, which marginalizes or ignores mixed-race people, 3. that they seemed very interested in making white anarchists/activists feel bad about not having POC in their groups and not having their particular POC agenda as a priority, 4. that to overcome this racism inherent (!) in anarchism, it was necessary for APOC to “take the lead” in anarchist/activist organizing.
Class got trumped. Almost nobody among current APOC wants to talk about it. After all, in America, class is not visually marked, and it’s not usually marked by speech. In other words, class is hard to detect. But being a POC is easy to see—except when it’s not.
American APOC completely ignore the ways that race is enforced in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean—let alone anywhere else in the world. Although they probably won’t like hearing it, this makes them typically American: isolationist, inward-looking, believing their own experiences to be unique but then, ironically, extending those attitudes onto all other cultures, acting as if they are always right. American APOC view their oppression only in terms of white supremacy, and they insist that this is the main enemy of all POC, American or not. In this way American APOC attempt to colonize—that’s right, colonize!—the race-based oppression of all POC internationally, not acknowledging that nothing recognizable as “white supremacy” exists among the majority of the world’s people. White supremacy doesn’t exist anywhere in Africa or Asia (with the exception of Australia and New Zealand—maybe), is barely hanging on in some enclaves in South America (but even there, racial politics don’t take place only in terms of “whiteness”), and is expressed very differently in Europe than it is in the U.S. The Middle East has its own set of racialized conflicts, because not all residents there are ethnically Arab, not all Arabs are Muslim (most Muslims are Asian), and Muslims are split along religious (not racial) lines. Then there’s the “Jewish Question,” which makes American APOC really uncomfortable. I voted with my feet, distancing myself from APOC.
The American APOC discussions are an example of either/or logic (either white or not), rejecting distinctions (all POC are essentially the same, or at least should have the same agenda, and if they don’t, they aren’t “real POC”), and a colonizing of other POC experiences to fit in with their own easy answers. Mostly people don’t talk about the logic of capitalism except maybe for the way it influences how race and white supremacy are supposed to operate. Class is off the table—all oppressions are reduced to race (and maybe a combination of race with gender). Racial markers that are not visual are ignored—a particularly American way of looking at race.
The American APOC discourse leaves no place for me, an educated, light-skinned Berber; for the majority of American APOC I am invisible—even privileged because of my economic and educational background, but especially due to my light skin. Ironically (I guess?), I am more invisible among them than I am among supposedly racist white anarchists. Not because I can “pass” as white, but because I don’t have to prove that I am anything other than an anarchist. American APOC demand some kind of “authenticity” from their comrades, some kind of blood quantum. Usually all that takes is a high melanin content, regardless of how anarchist the comrade is.
So why am I writing this now? APOC discussions are all over the web again. People are being called “racist” for daring to criticize an APOC declaration or manifesto, regardless of its anarchist content. Now I’m not just disappointed, I’m offended.
What does that “A” stand for again? Are we anarchists or not? That’s the distinction that’s interesting to me, not how many of our grandparents weren’t white. Enough is enough.
Damn, that's some pretty
Damn, that's some pretty heavy shit.
Glad an actual real live POC finally said something that's critical of the sub-maoist b.s. coming out of APOC.
'...sub-maoist b.s...' That
'...sub-maoist b.s...'
That reminds me ' Autonomists', ' Situationists', 'Luxembergists', Council Communists', 'Libertarian Marxists', 'Ultra-Leftists'...and did I leave anyone out?
Oh yeah...' Platformists'. They're all well on their way to 57 varieties by the look of it. And good riddance.
Whats wrong with
Whats wrong with Autonomists? They did pretty good in Rostock, even Green Anarchy had to admit that. What about the Greek Anarcho-Autonomi? I'd say Libertarian Marxist Fredy Perlman and Ultra-Leftist Jacques Camatte are still reasonably pertinent to modern Anarchism.
Situationism is fun.
agreed. -lord rambler
agreed.
-lord rambler
This is good shit. Issues
This is good shit. Issues like this need to be raised within the anarchist milieu more often.
--the Schizz
my critique of this piece is
my critique of this piece is that it is not terribly original. Like a lot of the APOC criticisms, it is largely a reaction (rehashing many old arguments) to the APOC resurgence rather than offering any sort of an alternate vision. What would have been nice is a nuanced opinion that was more than 'this is what is fucked up about APOC' -- and thus beyond the usual complaints denying all legitimacy from what are, at points, fair criticisms by APOC. Maybe dreaming of nuance from anarchists just doesn't work though. While I don't agree with APOC, its critics don't strike me as an insightful lot either, and I expect truth is somewhere in between the sides.
Oddly I can see the author being embraced for these critiques by those who don't see value in people of color in the first place, but support the comments on the enemy-of-my-enemy basis. Maybe the author wanted it that way? Oh well.
There we go again with the
There we go again with the fetish for "originality." The criticisms in the post are "original" for the author, which is why he wrote them; he needed to get them off his chest. In case you didn't notice, the post is a bit of a rant rather than a cool, dispassionate, philosophical articulation of the many holes in APOC discourse with an accompanying attempt at a corrective solution. Take the post for what it is, not for what you'd prefer it to be. Ignoring what it plainly is and then complaining about it not being something else is called bad faith, sir.
I doubt that the author wanted anti-APOC supporters. Another example of bad faith.
Forgive me for expecting
Forgive me for expecting more of anarchists. I don't think it's unreasonable that the author do something that has more meat to it. If it goes little beyond the same complaints infoshop comment trolls go for, what makes it more legit? That he is POC? Doesn't work, though I respect where you're coming from.
Why would you expect "more
Why would you expect "more of anarchists" than of non-anarchists? We are human just like everyone else.
Clearly Dunash is not in the same league as "infoshop comment trolls" and not just because he is a POC. The anti-POC faction over at infoshop (the one who whine about APOC being racist or other such bullshit) have nothing but mud to sling at a tendency they find threatening. "Enough is Enough" is more of a plea for APOC to be true to its original (?) mission of making POC visible within anarchist discourse and among anarchists.
That Dunash is a POC doesn't make his critique "more legit" either, and your bringing that up as a criterion verges on the essentialist (some might say that the criticism is more legit coming from another POC, but then again, they might say that Dunash isn't a "real" POC).
These are legit
These are legit criticisms--I think most of the negatives the author describes about APOC discussions in the US are all totally there, along with a lot of other tendencies and possibilities. I'm a mixed-race anarcho-guy who grew up in a very white environment, and I pick up a lot of the same static that the author has written about, particularly when "authenticity" becomes a passive-aggressive weapon in APOC circles.
At the same time, I'm putting a lot of energy into APOC-centered projects right now *specifically* because I think it brings together a lot of POC folks who've ended up at the margins of both predominantly-white anarchist movement *and* POC movement, like me. Most of the APOCers I know are either mixed race, queer, trans, or womyn dissatisfied with patriarchal POC contexts--and most are, yup, working class folks to boot.
So I don't agree with everything in the post: for instance, I've been in some APOC discussions where class isn't talked about much, and others where there's class discussion up the wazoo. But there's good stuff in here too that shouldn't be ignored.
Are we to assume that
Are we to assume that Illivox.org is a separate voice from APOC caucuses? There has to be some definition of what Illivox.org is. I will pull back my criticism of "APOC", which seems to be an amorphous entity that is created in caucuses and gatherings. It also seems to be an identity shared by certain groups, suh as the one this article is about. Illivox.org puts out stuff that should be challenged. This person that wrote this article, dunash, seems to only be talking about their personal experiences in relation to a certain group that identifies as an "APOC" group. They want attention to their website, as I've claimed elsewhere. I'll bite and write a position paper on it and submit it to Illivox.org.
I don't think that Illvox is
I don't think that Illvox is necessarily a separate voice from various APOC caucuses and individuals. The problem is that most of the people who post there are not named, so it is impossible to know if they are the same people I've experienced at meetings and events. Without a zine or some other discussion bulletin devoted to APOC discussions, what we're left with is Illvox--unless anyone knows of a better site for such discussions.
You're right that APOC is a shared identity, one that requires no establishing of credentials beyond skin tone. My particular problem with some of the APOC I have encountered is that my status as a POC has been both questioned and disbelieved. This practically screams out the next question: what is a POC and who gets to define it? Most of the APOC answers are you define yourself as a POC. But then why have I been challenged to establish THAT credential while I have not been challenged to establish my anarchist credential? And it's not only among the people I've encountered in person. Previous discussions on an APOC site were overflowing with hostility toward "outsiders" (that is, people not sufficiently "of color"--however defined, or sufficiently on the same page) who questioned the dominant (and I use that term on purpose) positions of the leaders.
And I'm a dude, so you don't have to say "they" when referring to me.
My name is Dunash and I approved and wrote this message.
I'm glad you've had
I'm glad you've had discussions of class with APOC. I have too, but what I wrote was that class gets trumped by race almost 100% of the time. A discussion of class can go on for hours, get talked about up the wazoo, but in the end, if people are looking at things in terms of race and the proposed solutions and strategies are formulated in terms of race, then class got trumped again. I don't think all social conflicts can be reduced to class, but I also don't think that most of them can be reduced to race.
I'd love to be able to work in some APOC projects, but the folks where I am are all visual-cue POC who are the ones who don't believe that I'm a "real POC." That makes it impossible for me to join with them on anything, which is too bad, because I still support the idea of APOC as a caucus within a larger anarchist movement.
Sorry, I forgot to sign that
Sorry, I forgot to sign that last one. I'm Dunash and I approved and wrote the previous post.
I'm bumping this so that it
I'm bumping this so that it can be seen again by all the folks putting words into the mouths of every POC. This post, while certainly not perfect, does shine an interesting light on the issue of identity and identity politics from the "inside" as it were.
"I don't think all social
"I don't think all social conflicts can be reduced to class, but I also don't think that most of them can be reduced to race."
i much appreciate dunashs analysis and this line sums up what i appreciate most about it. i am sick to death of the many forms of reductionism i see in day to day life. i would sum it up that matters we are dealing with can be reuced to social control in all its forms and i would be highly tempted to label all this as a cosequence of domestication (but i stop here because even this just sounds to damn abstract, not enough flesh and blood to it, but you know how it is writing something on the internet, or often just generally writing something down and not having direct communication...). my goal is a world where freely associated communities of individuals can decide their own destinies and even change these as they see fit, even dissassociate if they must. i abhor all simple divisons of existence, epseically the abstractions of strict "right" and "wrong" and doubly so when these are broadly thrown on all people born into_____________ group (choose your category and accompanying dehumanization).
note that i have said several places that APOC does have some points to make too even while being harshly critical. i know the activist communities around my area pretty well given my past involement in them and, yes, i have seen much of the patronizing white liberal guilt savior attitudes that many POC complain about and they are part of why these groups have become a particularly bad joke to me (hey, lets go take our white middle class asses out into a poor black nieghborhood so we can educate and organize them...good fucking griefe!). sadly, most U.S. anarchist practice has become a stale and bad one liner joke to me i have to admit.
-lord rambler