top
Racial Justice
Racial Justice
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Help RACE make it to the Anarchist People of Color Conference

by RACE (race [at] riseup.net)
Help RACE do a benefit for the APOC conference!
RACE is looking for Bay Area events over the next few weeks (until the end of September) to hold bake sales and the like to help its members get to the Anarchist People of color conference being held in Detroit in October.

http://illegalvoices.org

If you are holding a progressive or multi-cultural event (and/or like vegan baked goods) and would be o.k. with us tabling your event please email us at race [at] riseup.net

Thanks.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by blah
"RACE" has got to be the worst name ever for an anarchist organization. sounds a nationalist outfit.

is "RACE" trying to overturn racial divisions or celebrate them?
by Question and Observation
Can someone who is about "overturning racial divisions, not celebrating them." please explain how to go about doing this?

Most of the time folks with this kind of banter just want to pretend racial division don't exist. Then, anyone who points out racial divisions and wants to discuss strategies to end them in a principled fashion is accused of being "nationalist."
by blah
i don't deny racial divisions and racism in this society. it's one thing to acknowledge the realities of racism, it's quite another to make the tool that divides into a fetish.

if i remember correctly, this event in Detroit that "RACE" is trying to hustle money up to attend excludes white people.

tell me how this assists in overthrowing capital and its state.

by cut and paste
Maybe this will save some time in explaining. This quote from the APOC site explains in detail why an Anarchist People of Color conference is happening;

"Can white people attend this conference?
No. As people of color, we believe it is important to hold on our autonomy, as we discuss among ourselves those issues most affecting us. For years, we have been generally excluded from Anarchist movements and programs. We realize that there are whites in the Anarchist and progressive scene who are sympathetic to our cause, but feel that we have the absolute right to meet an plan an agenda of our own choosing around our own interests, especially how we deal with racism, poverty, racial profiling, police brutality, mass imprisonment of youth of color and other issues which most impact our communities. Just as women, gays or other autonomous groups, we decide whether or how to allow others outside our tendency to participate. We've asked that this conference be a people of color-only space.
Historically, there have always been ethnic Anarchist tendencies in the United States, whether Jewish, German, Italian, Russian, Polish, or others in the Third world. It should be no surprise that Africans in America, Xicano/a, Puerto Rican and other forces would try to build their own united tendency.
We do ask that those sympathetic to the conference offer material aid, mutual political support, solidarity and deep and honest understanding while we hold this conference and try to create our movement.
Can people of color who are light-skin-toned attend the conference?
All people of color, including those with lighter skin tones, are welcome to the conference. We are hoping to see workshops on the internal and external issues associated with skin tone and communities of color. If you are interested in facilitating such a workshop, please submit a proposal."

Would probably be a good idea to visit the site anyway. Hopefully the above statement answers any questions, it seems ok for me. If the organizers of APOC do not wish to have any white European people there, that is their choice and should be respected..
by blah
<<As people of color, we believe it is important to hold on our autonomy, as we discuss among ourselves those issues most affecting us.>>

translation: the mayor of Detroit's kids can attend but the children of unemployed white auto workers can't.

<<For years, we have been generally excluded from Anarchist movements and programs.>>

thank you for being so specific.

<<We realize that there are whites in the Anarchist and progressive scene who are sympathetic to our cause but feel that we have the absolute right to meet and plan...>>

rights are a bourgeois construct.

<<Just as women, gays or other autonomous groups>>

what does it mean to say women and gays are "autonomous groups"?

<<we decide whether or how to allow others outside our tendency to participate.>>

in other words, our tendency is defined by our "racial" status.

<<Historically, there have always been ethnic Anarchist tendencies in the United States, whether Jewish, German, Italian, Russian, Polish...>>

name one such "tendency" that has excluded others based on their race or ethnic status. any white ethnic anarchists that based exclusionary policies on racial or ethnic grounds would have been hazed out of the movement.

<<It should be no surprise that Africans in America, Xicano/a, Puerto Rican and other forces would try to build their own united tendency.>>

what's surprising is that they have the nerve to call themselves anarchists.

<<We do ask that those sympathetic to the conference offer material aid, mutual political support, solidarity and deep and honest understanding while we hold this conference and try to create our movement.>>

wow, was that line lifted from Uhuru House literature?

<<Can people of color who are light-skin-toned attend the conference?>>

Ricky Martin is welcome, Emma Goldman we'd kick out onto the street.

<<Hopefully the above statement answers any questions, it seems ok for me.>>

evidently you're an idiot.


by damn
someone sounds like a fucking young republican. you could stand to do some reading. then, if your analysis is still strictly class based, consider joining the spartacists or the RCP or something.

and you act as if "mainstream" anarchists (read: mainly white) check poverty credentials at the door when they hold a conference!?!

ha.

kropotkin was a prince. and all the whitey anarchists you celebrate were educated (hence, to some extent liberated from the dungeons of the working class)
by Souljah Slim
After reading the commentary on this page and others concerning the APOC conference, it is clear to me that is less about "excluding white people" and more about excluding the backward and savage who, in this case, happen to be white. Look at their posts for proof!

Those who fear people of color coming together for a common cause only do so because they are in fact the enemies of of people of color, and ultimately, the enemies of freedom.

They talk albout love and struggle, but they have no love because they do not trust non-white people to think and do for self; and they do not know what struggle is because they lack and the intelligence and depth of analysis to understand the struggle of people of color, and thus the need for this conference and the conditions surrounding it.

If white "progressives" do not support this thing, fine. Whatever. Fuck you, fuck your anarcho-fascist politics, and kiss my black ass! But if you openly, actively oppose it, expect to be dealt with...firmly!
by blah
damn says:

<<if your analysis is still strictly class based, consider joining the spartacists....>>

my answer:
1) no, my analysis isn't strictly class based (whatever that might mean).
2) sad to say, but my guess is that the Sparticists have a more sophisticated analysis of race and class than you tin-pot anarcho-nationalist liberals do.

<<all the whitey anarchists you celebrate were educated>>

the only anarchist i mentioned was Emma Goldman. if you weren't aware, she was an immigrant, a Russian Jew, and, surprise surprise, a woman. these should win her some points in your book, right? i guess she loses a star next to her name, however, seeing as she read lots of books, was a wage-slave, believed in the class struggle, and wasn't inclined to exclude people from the movement based on their "race" or ethnicity.

<<hence, to some extent liberated from the dungeons of the working class>>

don't you feel silly writing things like that?

Souljah Slim says:

<<After reading the commentary on this page and others concerning the APOC conference, it is clear to me that is less about "excluding white people" and more about excluding the backward and savage who, in this case, happen to be white.>>

that's some good rhetoric there, souljah. kudos to you.
the FACT remains that your exclusionary policy has no such litmus test. You're excluding people categorically BECAUSE they're white, while allowing, "the backward and savage" (your words) who aren't.
bottom line: the Mayor of Detroit's kids could attend your conference (provided, i'm guessing, they spout the proper rhetoric or are vetted by people who do) while the kids of white wage-slaves can't.
would you like to address this fact or would you rather engage in dishonest word-play?

the rest of your post is typical demogogic bull-crap. like i said before you make the tool of the exploiters and oppressors--racial difference--into a fetish. the trans-racial/ethnic capitalist class thanks you.
by Chuck0 (chuck [at] mutualaid.org)
I really hope that Bay Area anarchists step up to help RACE activists get to the APOC conference. I've been doing what I can as a white anarchist to promote the conference and I'll see what I can do to send anarchists from the Kansas City area to this conference.
by Hilda
the people who write comments on indymedia aren't the general community, nor the activist community. The antiterrorism task force was writing to the police departments to check indymedia to see what's going on, and there is evidence that quite a few of them do check. Also, there are several aggressive people or spammers who seem to be here almost for a 40 hour week or more - as though it's their job.
by blah
not one supporter of racial separatism in the anarchist movement has made a coherent argument in its defense. for expressing disagreement, i'm accused of being a republican, a class reductionist, backward and savage, against freedom and humanity, and a cop--but never are ANY of my concerns addressed or refuted. how typical of the moralist anarcho 'movement' (which constantly wonders why its numbers are so fucking small and its impact so chronicly minimal).

per se, i don't care that there's a racially exclusionary meeting in Detroit. it's what it indicates about the "revolutionary" movement today that concerns me. not that any of you supporters of separtism have bothered to try, but i'm open to being convinced of such a meeting's strategic necessity if the strategy were explicitly tied to a politics that were something more radical than what your average ultra-liberal would embrace.

one question to separtism's supporters: if there were a big strike in a strategic sector of the capitalist economy and the striking work-force included whites, how would you all respond to such an action?

by Scottie
Remember in history some of the parts of the revolution have represented the future oppressors. The idealistic revolutionaries have seldom been able to control these people.

If they oppose core principles, such as the right of people of all races not to be excluded solely on the basis of that race, then to ignore that is to fall into the same trap of those people above who ignored the behaviour of their allies until it was too late.

If you argue on the other hand that there will be no revolution and that this is just some posturing then you have the problem that all it is achieving is to crate yet another zone where one race is considered unacceptable. It seems you still have work to do in fighting that in associations and communities in the US why would you give up now?
by Go away, trolls.
> "the right of people of all races not to be excluded solely on the basis of that race..."

Have you lugnuts heard of the concept of "safe spaces"? This is not a general anarchist conference that just happens to be for anarchists of color only. This is a conference for and by anarchists of color to discuss issues that concern anarchists of color in a safe space to participate without fear of being dominated by white anarchists.

To say that this is "racial exclusion" or "separatism" only displays your lack of understanding on such matters.
by Scottie
"Have you lug nuts heard of the concept of "safe spaces"? "

Do you mean safe spaces like golf clubs and mens clubs? What about streets that blacks can't drive without being stopped and questioned? Those sorts of safe places?
Defining it as a "safe place" implies that you either think that whites by definition will make it unsafe OR you are willing to tolerate the belief that that might be true.

(imagine what the far right would do if you said that was OK. All sorts of "safe" clubs and neighbourhoods could emerge)

I guess you are extending the concept of safe places for battered women where they keep men away due to the possibility that they might distress the women. but that is only valid in as far as you are arguing that the group in question has some sort of psychological disorder that requires treatment without aggravating it.
I don’t know why you would want to say that.
Anyway usually a big part of that is the gradual reintroduction of men so as to allow them to reintegrate.

"To say that this is "racial exclusion" or "separatism" only displays your lack of understanding on such matters."

Watch out that you dont start to sound like the southerner (imagine the acent) who argues "I'm not racist I just don’t want blacks here" and then "Im not racist, this only displays your lack of understanding."
by anarchist
You're not an anarchist. This discussion is none of your business. Go away. Annoy somebody else.
by Scottie
anarchist - your not a golf player probably but I expect you would protest if tiger woods was excluded from golf courses because he is black.
The seed of racism should be stamped out wherever it arises.
by blah
nessie's metaphorical justification for racial separatism has a certain simple appeal, but i'm afraid he can't see the anarcho-engine for all its fragments.

it's either that or anarchism today is simply a mish-mash of postmodernist notions, minus the erudition, overlaid with snappy catch-words like "autonomy" and "free spaces" used to conceal its strategically vapid and intellectually feeble essence. invocation of words like "autonomy", more times than not, are little more than anarchists' self-aggrandizing way of asserting the right to do something no-one claims they don't have the right to do, while evading substantive discussion of its political and strategic efficacy. this de facto rhetoric of rights, unbeknownst to the average anarchist, is fundamentally no different than liberal notions of the rule of (bourgeios) law. it's funny as fuck, and highly telling, that the "revolutionary anarchists" organizing this coming conference defend their no-whites entrance policy, not on strategic grounds, but by citing the UN's definition of racism!

so much of anarchism these days does not even purport to offer a strategy for mounting a challenge--let alone overthrowing--capital and its state. anarchist victories consist of carving out "autonomous" or "free" spaces into which they recede to defend the "movements" ostensible integrity from impure actions and deeds. to the extent that they address concerns that most working class and dispossessed people may relate to, more often than not the issues are couched either in terms of how they effect anarchists and their "movement" OR as they effect people, not as human beings (no, that wouldn't be sufficiently sensitive), but as they're experienced by and *as* blacks, *as* queers, *as* women, *as* elders (nessie's example), ta da ta da ta da. a cause and effect of this is that there is almost never any STRATEGIC discourse about mounting a collective attack against the system.





by Randy of the Redwoods
from the conference website:

>>White people, even fellow radicals, have yet to deal with their own racism, within progressive political circles. We do not expect that they can contribute anything at this time to our program. We do ask for the material aid...etc,etc<<<

Unfortunately, i only have white checks in my checkbook at this time...I have ordered some checks of color and I will have my donation in the mail as soon as they arrive...
by Reason
"...there is almost never any STRATEGIC discourse about mounting a collective attack against the system."

How true. It's simply a pie-in-the-sky fantasy -- with absolutely no basis in reality. I'll create my own fantasy:

'Everyday is Christmas'. Nobody has to work. Presents flowing. Big turkey dinner for every meal. Friends and/or family over for the big party. Happy kids. Drinks. Snow falling.



by yadda, yadda, yaddda
>nessie's metaphorical justification for racial separatism

I am not justifying racial separatism, metaphorically or otherwise, because what I am justifying isn’t racial separatism. It’s a single purpose meeting with selective attendance. These things happen all the time. When, for example, the SF-IMC tech collective meets, techies attend and technical issues are discussed. This isn’t techie separatism. This is focus. Techies attend and technical issues are discussed because that’s who and what that particular meeting is focused on. Other meetings are focused on other things. All the meetings put together, and all they accomplish, add up to the movement.


>i'm afraid he can't see the anarcho-engine for all its fragments.

Of course i can. That’s just not what I focused on in that particular comment. I’m trying to stay on topic here. Yeah, I know, it’s a novel concept around here, but it a concept whose time has come. As is often the case with such concepts, it falls on your truly to pioneer putting it into practice. I really, really wish that some of the rest of the people around this place would start pulling their weight with the pioneering, but oh well.

> there is almost never any STRATEGIC discourse about mounting a collective attack against the system.

You’re right. However, this should be the focus of a different meeting, or better still, series of meetings. Strategy needs to not be a part of every meeting. It’s to big and too important to address in ten minute segments. It needs our full attention for significant periods of time and on a regular basis.

So I propose a round of strategy meetings to take place more or less simultaneously in various locations across the globe. As is often the case, the Bay Area will take the lead. So where and when will we have the next Bay Area anarchist strategy meeting? Suggestions, anyone?

by RACE member
I tend to agree with the criticism of racial exclusion and strategic 'incompleteness' made by blah. This is one of the reasons that RACE is not an 'exclusionary' organization by design (and consequently not particularly popular in the mainstream APOC scene) and why many of our struggles are around issues of what coalition building looks like.

My personal concern is that the criticism is incomplete. Watching a parade go by you and making the comment that it isn't particularly brilliant or interesting or satisfying is a great comment to make, on the side, to a pal. And that is all it is. While it may get a lot of people bent out of shape that you would criticism an event that you are not feeling invited to for not inviting you, I am of the mind that your comment is not a very good marker of how interesting or valuable you may be to work with. Moreover your observation doesn't reflect at all on the fact that we -must- associate with generally unintersting people as a consequence of living in this world, particularly if we want to associate with somewhat (defined broadly) like-minded people.

The question of strategy is also particularly important and loaded. So much so that I will not overburden these comments more than they already have been.

Cheers.
by work is stupid
Yeah, working is stupid, who needs to pay bills, have shelter, save money, buy food and silly crap like that, not me!


by blah
Thanks for your reply.

I'd like you to know that my comments are not motivated by bitterness at being left-out of an event that I pine to attend. While I'm aiming my fire here primarily at the racially exclusionary policies of the coming Detroit conference, these aren't--by a long shot--the extent of my criticisms of the anarchist "movement" (as i'm sure you could tell). In short, I don't get that excited about anarchist conferences whether or not they include the mellanin-less.

I think that anarchism--as it's discussed, theorized, and practised these days--sucks a lot of potentially effective and vital radicals and revolutionaries into a vortex in which the fundamental strategic and political questions of our times are all confused. Anarchist theory doesn't have to be lazy, but i think that the anarchist scene/movement systematically induces theoretical laziness. It seems that so much of what passes for anarchist theory consists of:
1) extreme moralism;
2) self-referential tropes (putting anarchists as people and as a "movement" at the center at the expense of ideas and analysis--"we anarchists did this..." as opposed to conveying a revolutionary critique of conditions we face)
3) pat slogans that often don't withstand scutiny;
4) a tendency to think being militant and radical are one in the same, and to fail to distinguish between tactical and strategic questions (with much damage done, in the process, to the latter)
5) contempt for the idea that we should really understand how capitalism works

If I thought that many or most self-proclaimed anarchists were unintelligent i wouldn't bother criticizing the anarchist movement--i would instead just feel thankful that a bunch of dummies weren't Rush Limbaugh fans. Instead the anarcho movement seems to draw smart and energetic people in and presents them (and the rest of the world) with militant liberalism dressed up as the cutting edge of revolt against the system.....

Perhaps the anarchist movement can escape from its present morass of confusion and irrelevance; until it does, increasing numbers of serious radicals will (continue) to not identify as anarchists.


by matthew from uhuru
the reason a "people of color"-only meeting freaks out a lot of whites out is because our white nationalist society trains us to believe that white people must be in the center of the universe for anything productive to happen.

white people are generally willing and eager to believe the implicit/explicit lie of capitalism -- that we have the lion's share of the resources, education, money, skills, etc. because we have some inherently superior qualitites to the rest of the world's people. hell; that's a lot nicer for us to believe than we got the resources, education, money, skills, etc. because our people have been butchering the rest of humanity and stealing everything for the past five centuries or so. therefore we get greatly offended when a group of people hold a meeting or start a organization where, not only are expressions of deep appreciation for us being in the room not forthcoming, but we aren't even invited in the first place. "you mean a bunch of anarchists want to have a meeting but won't invite white people!?!? and they expect white allies to support this?!?! outrageous! RACISM!!!!"

anything that challenges the idea the that white people aren't and shouldn't be in the center of the universe will met with attacks from white people (and others) -- both from the right and left of the political spectrum. both sides will cry "racism."

i have to admit though, i don't get this "people of color" term. when i was a kid, my family and i used to watch "all in the family." we used to laugh at the backwards silly antics of the racist character archie bunker who called non-white people "colored people." switching the words around and the term "people of color" becomes progressive? not to me. are white people just "people" and everyone else the "of color" subset of "people"? in the uhuru movement, i was taught that are asians, africans, raza, arabs, etc. who all had distinctive and specific lands and cultures, who can not be lumped into one category based on their proximity to us "people of non-color" or whatever we white people are. do we agree on this?
by Scottie
Nessie
Without money what system will you use to allocate resources to those who need it and what incentive will you have to make sure people understand and do what other people want them to do?

This is what money is supposed to do. Inequality "apparently" created by money is just a side effect of the underlying allocation of physical and mental resources including the resource of effort (and luck of course).
by racist detector
More proof that Leftists are the true racists....
by Scottie
OK
But it is a truely dangerous philosophy you have there.

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

basically for those who are not part of the problem it should be particularly bad since if it was to reach the stage at which it effects them it may be too late.

And it always starts with the little things. This is the vital service provided by the socially motivated. They get upset about the small things, often things that dont directly concern them, and shame those who are discriminating into learning that they cannot discriminate. It is that process that more than anything has achived equal rights (well almost equal) by shaping how people think about race gender, disability etc.

Everytime you let somthing go you are taking a set backwards along that path even if it is a friend who is doing the discriminating. Every time you defend that sort of a position you are fighting against the very same thing that is your most important tool.

I think an all white military or an all white association is an abomination even if no blacks actually want to join it Even if the whites feel they cant talk freely in the presence of a black.

You(pl) of all people I hoped would consider that.
by can't take a hint
His momma must have neglected to teach him common courtesy.
by blah
Anarchists supportive of racially-exclusive conferences should take note of the fact that Matthew of the Stalinist/Maoist/Yeshetilaist cult, Uhuru House, thinks such activities are a-okay. That's some good company!

I'm going to repost my previous post because it's been buried under a bunch of off-message prattle:

To the RACE member: thanks for the reply---->

I'd like you to know that my comments are not motivated by bitterness at being left-out of an event that I pine to attend. While I'm aiming my fire here primarily at the racially exclusionary policies of the coming Detroit conference, these aren't--by a long shot--the extent of my criticisms of the anarchist "movement" (as i'm sure you could tell). In short, I don't get that excited about anarchist conferences whether or not they include the mellanin-less.

I think that anarchism--as it's discussed, theorized, and practised these days--sucks a lot of potentially effective and vital radicals and revolutionaries into a vortex in which the fundamental strategic and political questions of our times are all confused. Anarchist theory doesn't have to be lazy, but i think that the anarchist scene/movement systematically induces theoretical laziness. It seems that so much of what passes for anarchist theory consists of:
1) extreme moralism;
2) self-referential tropes (putting anarchists as people and as a "movement" at the center at the expense of ideas and analysis--"we anarchists did this..." as opposed to conveying a revolutionary critique of conditions we face)
3) pat slogans that often don't withstand scutiny;
4) a tendency to think being militant and radical are one in the same, and to fail to distinguish between tactical and strategic questions (with much damage done, in the process, to the latter)
5) contempt for the idea that we should really understand how capitalism works

If I thought that many or most self-proclaimed anarchists were unintelligent i wouldn't bother criticizing the anarchist movement--i would instead just feel thankful that a bunch of dummies weren't Rush Limbaugh fans. Instead the anarcho movement seems to draw smart and energetic people in and presents them (and the rest of the world) with militant liberalism dressed up as the cutting edge of revolt against the system.....

Perhaps the anarchist movement can escape from its present morass of confusion and irrelevance; until it does, fewer and fewer serious anti-state communists will see much in it to link up with.
by Gyno-Political-Activist
If white "progressives" do not support this thing, fine. Whatever. Fuck you, fuck your anarcho-fascist politics, and kiss my black ass! But if you openly, actively oppose it, expect to be dealt with...firmly!
--Souljah Slim

well....
we can sure see the racial overtones of this group!
should we consider this a generalized threat toward anyone who questions your organization. and why is it that your group actively discourages the participation of femininists from attending these meetings
by matthew from uhuru
Stalinist! Maoist! Yeshetilaist cult! Oh My!

nice slander, "blah."

btw: since you don't have the sack to post a real name, or political affinity, "blah" is not a bad choice for a handle. have you considered "worthless windbag piece of shit"? that would fit even better. ;-)

cheers, matthew
by matthew what a dork........
"How many times do I have to flush before you go away?"
by blah
Matthew, why don't you join the white support committee of the anarcho-separatist movement? I'm sure organizers of this conference would appreciate your skills as a fund-raiser, and politically, I can promise you, it won't be intellectually taxing.
by This week's Economist
"This sounds like good news [the decrease in militia groups]. But in the constantly churning, paranoid world of right-wing extremist groups, another more worrisome trend has emerged: neo-Nazi and white hate-groups, which have grown steadily since the 1990s. The SPLC estimates there are over 700 hate organisations (including black separatist groups) nationwide, with more than 100,000 active members and many more supporters: the highest count in 20 years. "

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2021273
by matthew
blah, i wouldn't join a solidarity group organized by anarchists "of color", because i think both anarchy the "of color" term reflects bad politics.

anyway, since now we're giving each other advice, here's some for you: why don't you ask yourself why a group of non white people coming together around the question of anarchy is so threatening to you? would you be equally threatened by other subsets of anarchists getting together? like a women's conference or a homosexual's conference? or is your problem strictly when non-white people want to do something where you're not invited?

some self-exploring of this problem of yours might do a world of good in you getting to the root of your reactionary, white nationalist chauvinism. frankly, this tendency of yours is standing in the way of progress.

also, if you don't have the guts to be come out of the closet with your identity and organizational affinities, i'd suggest not attacking others with unfounded slander for doing so. it makes you look like a pathetic coward.
by Re:would you be equally threatened
"Of color" is a weird term since its exclusionary and means everyone who is not "white" (whatever that means since race doesnt really exist). I think people would have no issues with a meeting of Chinese American anarchists (discussing commonalities), but would have an issue with a meeting of all anarchist except those with Chinese ancestry.

If the goal is a meeting of people who have had problems with discrimination based off cultural differences or appearance (is that the proper definition of racism?) perhaps that should be the way to describe the group or meeting. Of course that would mean that gay white people, overweight people might attend... cultural background would still include people from Apalachia, Eastern Europe, and Argentina... Saying that only "people of color" can attend a meeting leaves Iranians, Armenians, and Mexican Americans wondering if they can attend or now (I guess they oculd just show up and see if they are accepted?)

"People of color" is mainly a problematic grouping since its based off something that isnt well defined and doesnt really exist. Are Arabs people of color? What about Sephardic jews? What about people from Greece? Is Ralph Nader a "person of color"? What about Casey Kasem? What about Cher? What about people from Argentina? Where exactly is the difference? Its not language (most African Americans grew up speaking English). Its not place of birth or nationality (Argentinians are usually considered "white"). Its not skin color (people in parts of S Surope have darker skin than in many parts of the Middle East and Iran). Its not history of repression (were Greeks "POC" before their dictatorship ended in the 1970s).Race is a culturally constructed phenomena. "Racism" exists and needs to be dealt with but its a term that isnt clearly different from bigotry or xenophobia.
by Re:
Casey Kassem is a Palestinian Druze and Ralph Nader is Lebanese, so they are both people of color. Nader is debatable since much of Lebanon traces ancestry back to nonPOC who invaded during the Crusades. But, being by most standrads a POC, it is surprising Ralph didnt play the race card in terms of getting votes in the last election... One would have at least thought that he could have gotten an NAACP endorsement.

Cher is Armenian so she is not POC although shes close since Azerbaijabnis are right on the other side of the international people of color line.

The international POC line clearly goes up the Bosphorus through the Black Sea and then darts south around Georgia and Armenia and then back up dividing Kazakhstan in two and then circles Russia (going just south of the Inuit groups in the North) and darts south into part of Finland (since Laps are POC). The POC line then circles Europe and goes through the Meditarianian excluding all islands except Cyprus which it divides in half.

In the Americas, Native Americans and people with over 10% ancestry from nonPOC countries are POC. Latin America is divided in half with Argentina being the only nation with a nonmajority of POC.

The Ainu population of N Japan might not be POC but thats still being decided by the International Commision for Racial Division. The Romani population in Europe is POC since they came from N India within the past 1000 years. The Ashkenazi Jews are not POC (since the migration was more than 1000 years ago) whereas Sephardic Jews are POC if and only if their ancestors are from N Africa and didnt migrate there from Spain in the 1400s. Sicily, Albania have arbitrarilly been determined to be nonPOC since the history of rule and migration is just too complicated. All major groups in N Africa (even those that trace ancestry back to Greeks, Romans, Visigoths etc...) have been arbitrarilly determined to be POC. While the Mongolian invasions of E Europe and rule over Russia for hundreds of years mixed populations to an extreme, and that wasnt quite 1000 years ago, it would make things too complicated to acknowledge so Mongolian and Turkic ancestry resulting from these invasions wont be considered in determining POC status.

I hope that helps? Unlike eye color or hair color it takes a lot of work to divide a group in a way to have a well defined POC subgroup.If anarchists dont agree with the POC line mentioned above perhaps they can come up with a better way to destinguish who should be allowed into an anarchist people of color group? With all the bigotry recently against Arab Americans it seems like determining which populations of the MIddle East are POC would be very important if the group is going to deal with that issue.
by blah
I didn't bother touching upon the inherent absurdity of the "people of color" designation but 're' beautifully synopsizes how truly absurd it is. I'd be interested to see if *anyone* can define "people of color" in a way that accords with the ostensible purpose of this conference (overthrowing oppression and exploitation). Pulling on the POC "thread" for a definition that has any social revolutionary utility only succeeds in leaving the whole fabric in tatters. Do the defenders of this conference not see this? Or are they too ideologically committed to the POC category (and J. Sakai's latest ramblings) to give pause and think about the stupidity of the categories they invoke?

I'm betting that apologists will argue that the POC category has some kinks in it but gives a good--if somewhat crude--idea of who they want to attend. In other words, their defense will be that they're sloppy-ass thinkers.


by matthew
i had already pointed out contradictions in the term "people of color," blah. but i guess your hatred of the uhuru movement has got your sectarian blinders up to full effect, so you missed them.

anyway a conference of "anarchists people of color," implies that anarchists who aren't white have a common experience and perspective. it seems to me they want to get together to discuss these experiences, organize and network together. its a simple as that. perhaps the two or three out of every 200 anarchists in every city who isn't white would like to have a meeting where the room isn't dominated by white faces. i suppose since you have no idea what it would be like to be in a movement dominated by white people and not be white yourself, you can't respect this.

your problem with this meeting is telling blah. as i pointed out, the vast marjority anarchist gathering are overwhlemingly white. apparently you want to keep it that way. this problem of yours might also explain your hatred of the uhuru movement. interesting.
by Re:
I dont really have a problem with the conference mentioned; and obviously it wouldnt matter if I did. Many minority groups face discrimination by the government, have a hard time getting jobs, and are often tokenized in activist groups. Its often surprising to see the high percentage of "whites" at protests when the Bay Area (and especially SFand the East Bay) are majority "nonwhite". There is also a low percentage of many "white" minorities at protests so the issue isnt some nonexistent concept of race but one of the homogeneity of the activist community.

I am curious though on how people define POC, white, nonwhite, and even black (since most people have ancestors from various parts of the world). According to popular opinion Ralph Nader was white (and most of his supporters were white middle class activists) whereas someone like Bustamante is a person of color. Is this a class distinction? White meaning priviliged? The census treats Hispanics as white but would treat Ralph Nader as nonwhite (I think)

Just out of interest (for anyone who is curious). Here is the breakdown of San Francisco's population.
(http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm)

Race

One race
743478
95.72%
White
385728
49.66%
Black or African American
60515
7.79%
American Indian and Alaska Native
3458
0.45%
Asian
239565
30.84%
Asian indian
5524
0.71%
Chinese
152620
19.65%
Filipino
40083
5.16%
Japanese
11410
1.47%
Korean
7679
0.99%
Vietnamese
10722
1.38%
Other Asian
11527
1.48%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
3844
0.49%
Native Hawaiian
473
0.06%
Guamanian or Chamorro
305
0.04%
Samoan
2311
0.3%
Other Pacific Islander
755
0.1%
Some other race
50368
6.48%
Two or more races
33255
3.0 %

Its kinda weird how they divide people up since it not the same as the way activists do. It seems to be mainly country of origin (minus half of Eurasia) and is probably based off of peoples self descriptions (which usually means that someone who is half "black: and half "white" is "black" but someone who is half black and half Chinese is "mixed race".). Since racism is pretty bad in most of Latin America (with political candidates touting the lightness of their skin in many countries) I wonder how that is dealt with in a survey like this or by activist groups. Are people from North Western China considered Turkic (or even white) rather than Chinese. Are people from India considered POC or is caste dealt with (the upper castes claiming to be from S Iran and therefore white).

The biggest possible concern I would have with the idea of "white" people is that while Western Europe, the US and Scandanavia are rich and "white" therefore can mean rich, Eastern Europe is pretty poor. The Ukraine is poorer than Mexico and much of S America and parts of Russia are being oppressed for "racist" reasons but the populations being oppressed are by most activists definition "white". This can carry over into the US when immigration occurs from Eastern Europe and there are poor Eastern European ghettos in several major US cities. To call that population white (with all the conotations of slavery and wealth) seems silly especially when slavery in Eastern Europe continued into the late 1800s. Of course there is the difference that after a generation poor immigrants from Eastern Europe can blend in easier and face less discrimination, but its still something that doesnt fit with simplistic racial/ethnicity based political ideologies.
Russia freed its slaves before America did.
by blah
I already indicated earlier in this thread that I'm not that interested in anarchist conferences whether or not they're "mellanin-less"--not, at least, until the anarchist "movement" becomes more coherent and strategically smart. Alone, without modifiers (such as 'socialist' or 'communist'), anarchism is too broad a political designation to serve as the basis for fruitful collaboration. Questions of process and simple-minded anti-statism tend to trump all else, and like nationalists, "anarchists" all too frequently view themselves as a force existing outside society upon which they seek to impose their utopian goals. Hence, they endemically fail to speak to actual conditions faced by working class and poor people in a manner that is relevant to them, let alone offer a critique of capitalism that shines light on how it can be fought and victories can be won.

That said, I wish that anarchists would become a relevant force--not by being more militant, but by intervening with an analysis and strategically thought-out activities that inspire people to see that the present situation can be radically changed. Instead, it seems that anarchism is becoming ever more an excuse for sloppy thinking (ranging from liberal to warmed-over maoist) dressed up as the most radical thing going on.

My intent in questioning this racially exclusionary conference has been to see if its proponents will rise to the occasion and engage in real substantive debate. Since none have, I've instead just read the conference's promotional literature and have to come to this conclusion: This conference isn't intended as an opportunity for the ill-defined (and non-existent) "people of color community" to get together to forge a revolutionary anarchist movement. Its intent, instead, is to get "non-white" people together to discuss bad things that disproportionately, but by no means exclusively, effect "people of color" and impart a crypto-maoist critique which posits "race" as the fundamental division in, and most precise lens though which to understand, this society. This is anarchism? How?

Where the thrust of my dis here may be off-base is only in presuming that there is any such thing as an anarchist movement to critique or expect anything of.
by Tamari
exactly who is it we are expected to give our money to?
and exactly where do you expect then to go, and what is the benifit of sending them ?

by Bill Burrows

I must raise my voice to complain that I was "outed" from the Uhuru movement because I am a Scientologist. So, I must concurr with all of those who call it a "Stalinist" cult. Unless you're willing to worship the false consciousness of Omali Yeshiteli's bourgeois and racist ideology, you are not welcome to the cult. And a genuine cult it is, as a POC I must state. But compared to the modern science of mental health of L. Ron Hubard, Yeshiteli is a mental midget and a quack. He doesn't even compare. In addition, the racket he runs is spiritually impoverished. Just look at how Matty sounds more like a guilty sinner than anyone empowered to even help themselves. He pronates at the altar of Yeshiteli's dick and feels the atones him to volunteeristically join the jihad to get African-Americans money for reparations while ignoring nearly every other social injustice.

Fuck that!
by and that's his *good* side
He also f*cks sheep, eats babies and worships the devil. And when that doesn't slack his insatiable thirst for evil, he passes time by pulling the wings off of kittens.
by and not just *any* sheep, either
This sheep:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/05/127278_comment.php#127768
by jay
and who says indy posters aren't news worthey?

quick forward the above post to google!
we'll show-em who is a news worthey sight!!
by "one of the editors" must be a Zionist
Look how he agrees with "Uhh," the notorious Zionist propagandist:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1642058_comment.php#1643326
by Jackie
Oh no, agreeing with someone who wants a peaceful two-state solution, how evil!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Sarcasm.)
by Normal person
I'm nodding my head in bewilderment and disbelief. You should check yourself in to a closed psychiatric ward ASAP.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network