there's a really good article (written from an anarchist perspective) on palestine solidarity work and white priviledge here http://www.onwardnewspaper.org/archives/2-2002/solomon.html

What I'm asking is kind of a tangent from the article, but this article made me think on that level so here it is:

Is the amazing rise in palestine solidarity work due to the fact that it's easier to point out (and confront) injustice, genocide, and the continuing effects of imperialism "over there" than here at home?

Is our whiteness what keeps us working so hard at anti-imperialism in the middle east, and not the continued de-facto apartied here?

I tend to think so...

(apartied is mostly defined by personal liberty and access to resources, first nations folk have little - if any - of either)

Word association: I read that and suddenly I started thinking,

"On Dasher, on Dancer, on Prancer and Vixen,
On Comet, on Cupid, on Goyim and Shiksen."

Fuck off with the identity politics, eh?

The arrogance and condescension in this woman's article are precisely the antithesis of solidarity. Solidarity isn't about approval or getting an exact match for your own personal politics. Solidarity is about coming together under the banner of a common cause, despite each others real or perceived shortcomings and differences, because many voices accomplish more than a few.

Anyone who is conversant enough in the "radical" jargon to understand the point she's making, doesn't need a lecture on what anti-semitism really means, nor do they need someone trotting out bell hooks to make a point about Otherness. And those who might learn something from understanding what peoples are actually semites, or the wisdom of bell hooks, will be so totally alienated by Solomon's self-righteous identity politics that they'll tune out what is relevent and worthwhile in her article.

Once I got over a little initial irritation at some of Solomon's rhetoric, I found myself nodding, point by point. She, of course, is writing from New York and her experience of activism there, which I suspect is both more subtly differentiated and, sometimes, more dangerous than what we know here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

On Comet, on Cupid, on Goyim and Shiksen."

---

I posted it here for the conversation about (ideally) whiteness and solidarity work with people here and in the middle east. I think that the priviledge that white (especially radical) activists have makes it easier to identify the colonialism and racism in the middle east as opposed to here...

If we put so much work into solidarity with first nations people, we'd have to examine our priviledge, and think about our role in perpetuating colonialism (apartied, racism, etc) here.

from there I thought someone may have had a neat insight into the (un)workings of this...

So the writing style of the article is not that pertinent, she was writing to an audience that would appreciate it, and get it. she may not have been intending that the average soccer mom would read her article (if she did, I doubt that she would have used that many references to the black block... )

oh, well... worth a shot.

[ 19 December 2003: Message edited by: terra1st ]

quote:

---

she may not have been intending that the average soccer mom would read her article (if she did, I doubt that she would have used that many references to the black block... )

---

Nice that she referred to Bell Hooks (or bell hooks), though - a very good writer and, in my opinion, fairly clear and straightforward...most of the time.

On the central point - well, it's hardly a new one, is it? It's always easy to play at being Che rather than look closer to home - although of course it's not an acceptable alternative to only look** at local struggles. Generally I think the more over-the-top the identification..the wrapping of oneself in the flag (or, in the case of an American girl I once met, wearing green-white-and-orange braces as recogniation of the "Irish struggle"...eeugh), the less thought that has gone into the history and theory of the issue.

On the actual Palestinian issue, it's always worth noting that the UN has only seen fit to recognise one Permanent Observer Mission*** of displaced/stateless/oppressed peoples, and that's what was the PLO at the time. Although I agree that having that voice in New York is very important, I don't accept that there are two types of struggles in the world: the Palestinian cause, and "everyone else". But that's, I suppose, a result of the strong support of some other UN member states for that cause.

* see also "paradigm" and, my favourite, "epistimological", as dead giveaways!

** eek, split infinitive, but won't work the other way - though there are things that are worst than it - this is something up with which I will not put....)

I do take issue with the idea of "privilege" unless we are talking about the truly privileged in society, and would prefer to speak of discrimination and oppression (or multiple oppressions, as you will). It is not due to political disagreements with anarchist thought per se.

RW, I know what you mean when you say that the author takes shots at others, however I'd suggest that if anything the author is taking shots at people who mis-appropriate cultural symbols while trying to be "more radical"...

I didn't perceive the author to argue for being more or less radical, just realizing what was appropriate or inappropriate when partaking in an action... Maybe I should re-read it.

and as for the hooks quote, you're quite right that it wasn't needed to make the point... My guess is that the author included it 'cause if you or I say something, some leftists might shrug it off; If we quote chomsky or hooks, they will take it seriously. it is sad but all too common in the left.