View Full Version : Rally and March against crack cocaine and Gun Violence
Picked a leaflet up on this last night.
Sat 17th August
Windrush Square
1pm - 4:30pm
Speakers and music.
(I wonder is Mester Paddick is up to speak - would be right up his street, I'd have thought)
It's being organised by Lambeth Trident Independent Advisory Group.
(020 7582 1990 - after 30th July, 020 7793 9111)
{Edited to correct date: I've checked with Lambeth TIAG. Their flier was wrong! They've also had to rerun their adverts in the local press etc}
Thanks for the info pooka, I am going to try to be there.
Miscellaneous
29-07-2002, 22:19
i`m gonna try to be there too.
Glad to see something's happening about this at last. I think people are sick to the back teeth with losing the battle. Like holding back the tide with a Rizla.
Some of us are lambeth4paddick folk planning to join this march and rally and dole out some leaflets. They're specially designed A6 (1/4 A4) "flyers" which just carry a quote from Paddick (Stop the dealing - treat the addicts. Don't damage my community"), the web address and the newspaper story about him having no charge to face.
Are you up for doing some of this? Shouldn't take long, it's in the centre of Brixton and you'll get to meet some other U75er's. Details here (http://www.lambeth4paddick.org/html/rally.html)
Let me know and I'll give you details for meeting up etc.,
letsgetfree
14-08-2002, 20:02
This is a police sponsored demo..... The CIA are the biggest crack pushers in the world... you would have to be insane to go on this demo. Its turning the working class against each other...
"I'm not a hunter but i am told, that, in places like in the arctic, where indiginous people sometimes might, hunt a wolf, they'll take a double edged blade, and they'll put blood on the blade, and they'll melt the ice and stick the handle in the ice, and it will come and lick the blade trying to eat, and what happens is when the wolf licks the blade, of course, he cuts his tongue, and he bleeds, and he thinks he's really having a good thing, and he drinks and he licks and he licks, and of course he is drinking his own blood and he kills himself, thats what the Imperialists did with us with crack cocaine, you have these young brothers out there who think they are getting something they gonna make a living with, they is getting something they can buy a car, like the white people have cars, why can't I have a car? they getting something they can get a piece of gold, white people have gold, why can't I have gold? and they're slowly dying without knowing it.
That's whats happening to the community, you with me on that? that's exactly, precisely what happens to the community, for the wolf, that what happens is the wolf gets the blame, gets the blame for trying to live, you blame the oppressor, Imperialism, white power is the enemy, was the enemy when it first came to Africa, and snatched up the first African brothers here against our will, is the enemy today, and that's the thing that we have to understand" - Chairman Omali Yeshitela of the InterNational Peoples Democratic Uhuru Movement
letsgetfree:
And the moral of your (third hand) parable? Persuade the wolves not to lick blades in the ice.
For your information, the march is not police sponsored. The TIAG is indeed independent and made up of people not uncritical of the police. Do you know much about it? Do you live in Lambeth?
The CIA the worlds biggest crack pushers. Maybe; like all conspiracy theories, impossible to disprove. But while you're sorting out the CIA, don't deny ordinary people in Lambeth the opportunity to make a public statement of their disgust with this trade and maybe tip the balance of social pressures on people who may be at risk of getting drawn into it.
I hope as you gain a few years, you'll learn that telling people they're insane isn't the best way to persuade them of your arguements. It's possible they night just know better than you.
I'm afraid I'm away when this demo is taking place, but I would like to feature it on the site.
So I'd appreciate it if people could post up their reports and opinions from the event and I'll slap then up on the main site shortly afterwards (with full credit, natch!)
letsgetfree
15-08-2002, 21:00
pooka... your insane.
not the most productive of posts lgf:rolleyes:
but then again neither was this one:rolleyes:
Donna Ferentes
16-08-2002, 11:53
This is all over The Voice (http://www.voice-online.net/index.php) today (front page, pages 4 and 5).
I'm not inclined to be optimistic about this, though at the same time I wouldn't want to dissuade anybody from it. It's really not clear what it's going to say except to support the police and to continue (or intensify) failed crackdown policies. On the other hand, if it does at least mobilise people to express concern and discuss what can be done, then some good can come out of it.
Not necessarilly directed at yourself, Justin. But I am a bit bemused by some of the comments on this thread. Generally on these boards, there is a concensus - though not unanimity (sp?) that hordes of cyclists perambulating round London once a month will change people's attitudes to car use, or folk playing football down Oxford Street or scurrying round Mayfair in boiler suits is going to bring globalisation grinding to a halt.
But it's somehow different when people in a borough want to stand up and express their exasperation with what's going on on their doorstep.
Why?
Donna Ferentes
16-08-2002, 14:55
Because just saying "We're mad as hell, and we're not gong to take it any more" doesn't point in the direction of any solutions: and, not doing so, tends to become vulnerable to the law 'n' order lobby. I would fear that "sweep these people off our streets" is going to be the rallying cry. I'd like to be wrong though.
Saying "We're mad as hell, and we're not gong to take it any more" is a bloody good starting point! In this context, I think there's truth in the adage "Anger is an energy" (See T shirts thread).
As long as we all go about our lives looking the other way, then it's easy for the impression to take hold that this stuff is acceptable or at least tolerated.
Mrs Magpie
16-08-2002, 15:00
To be honest, I have long perceived the attitude in the white community that guns and crack are 'a black issue', so there's no point in getting involved as it doesn't directly affect their kith & kin so why bother:rolleyes:
Thankfully that piss-poor attitude is slowly changing.
Mrs Magpie
16-08-2002, 15:16
I am actually going because a friends sister was shot dead in front of her children and my next door neighbour of 13 years was shot dead a few months after he moved into his new ground level flat. He was 67 years old....I frankly don't give a flying fuck about anyone elses agenda on this. It's on my agenda for many reasons but mostly because of Miss Irie and Carlton Speid. Too many people around Brixton don't really care about what happened to them.
Donna Ferentes
16-08-2002, 15:37
Originally posted by pooka
Saying "We're mad as hell, and we're not gong to take it any more" is a bloody good starting point!
I don't know. I mean I see your point, obviously, but the trouble is that there's a serious danger of "something has to be done, this is something, therefore we must do this" and "this" will be the most easy-solution option to hand. I mean, this is exactly what happened in the US, wasn't it? There was a great deal of support for the war on drugs in the black communities, and what hapened was that it was the black communities who were criminalised (one-third of adult black males in some states are not actually forbiden to vote because of criminal records!) while the problem actually got far, far worse.
I would attend tomorrow if I weren't away or the weekend, but I am terribly, and I hope reasonably, concerned that it's gpoing to be a means of mobilising public opinion for a disastrous law 'n' order option and that other voices will be shouted down. Is that not a reasonable concern?
Of course it's a fair concern, Justin, and one many reasonable people will share. I think attending an event like this isn't to give anything that follows unqualified support. But if we never take Step 1 because, amongst all the possible Step 2's there are some we don't like, then we'll never do anything much.
It will always be the case that issues like this have to be dealt with in both the long and the immediate terms (Adam Porter put it well on this thread (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=322695#post322695).
You're right, there is always also the danger that some will focus on short term measures, and neglect the underlying causes - if you like being tough on crime, but not on the causes. But that is all the more reason to engage, is it not. Community movements that have the broadest concensus have the greatest chance of success, I'd say.
Lee Jasper, Ken Livingstone's advisor on Race and Policing issues and Chair of the Lambeth Community Police Consultative, is the organiser. Lambeth Operation Trident Independent Advisory Group is an independent (of the police) group of people from the community who want guns and crack off the streets. Yes, they co-operate with the police in trying to nail those people who are shooting dead members of the community. Yes, they want to work with and put pressure on the police to get guns and crack off the streets. No, this is not a police-led event. This is a community-led initiative.
Caspar Hauser
17-08-2002, 04:23
From PA:
Residents in drugs and guns protest
Residents in an area where police have adopted a liberal approach to cannabis use are protesting against the "devastation" of cocaine and guns. People in Lambeth are "determined to reclaim their community" after recent figures show gun crime is soaring, says Lambeth Trident Independent Advisory Group, organisers of the demonstration. Some residents have complained that the experiment to relax rules on soft drugs will lead to the increased use of hard drugs such as crack.
BTW, good to hear from you Brian. I hope you are bearing up alright. :)
edited for bad English, thanks pooka ;)
I went down to Windrush Square at about 4ish (late I know) and couldn't see any sign of this event. Was I just too late or did it not come off?
There was some other demo going on about "reparation", which annoyed me. It seemed abit separatist, but I might be wrong. I couldn't be bothered to listen to the bloke shouting about "black people are this.... white people are that" for very long.
Nope, hatboy you were late, but not too late. Didn't get off the ground. Majorly bad organisation, starting from putting the wrong date out to start with. We took a look about 12:45 and there was nothing in Windrush Sq., but going full pelt outside the Ritzy - the Reparations jobby with masses of bow-tied Nation of Islam laddos.
Returned to Windrush Sq about 1:00, when the press, police and marshalls outnumbered the punters. Numbers grew a bit, but I think a lot of people took the Ritzy Square doings to be one and the same, and either stayed there or buggered off.
I gather the Reparations folk didn't have a licence and at one point the police were minded to move them on, but wiser counsels prevailed!
Also, the anti-crack and guns people's generator was buggered (echos of the MAM do at Tower Hill!). Anyways, the march was cancelled till another time.
That said, I got to meet all sorts of interesting people who I'd not met b4, and say hello to others who I only knew from more formal settings. So worth going in that respect.
Lesson must be, if you're going to do something like that do it properly, or not at all.
<edited by Mrs M...the prefix anti- added so not to confuse lazy tabloid hacks...>
Mr Retro
17-08-2002, 16:26
Same as me and Ms Retro Hatboy. We left the Lido at 2.30 and only saw the demo you spoke of. We assumed I had got the date wrong (wouldn't be unusual).
It saddened me that all the people stewarding the event you talk about only asked black people to sign their petition and buy the paper they were selling. We couldn't get any info on what it was about at all. When I tried to cath a stewards eye it was if I was invisable. Can I not sypathise with their plight because I'm white?
Mr Retro
17-08-2002, 16:30
I didn't realise those guys (stewards :o) were Nation of Islam.
Sorry it did'nt get going Pooka. Next time.
Originally posted by Mr Retro
Can I not sypathise with their plight because I'm white?
I think in the separatist mindset, not Mr Retro. Matters not that your forebears were probably dying in a ditch with grass in their mouths whilst theirs were being transported. And that's the folly of it.
I listened for a bit to the guy from Philadelphia. He was a good crowd worker, with the repeated phrase "Do you remember slavery?" At first, there was a mumbled response, but in no time he had them worked up. It was very American.
Anyways, to hot for this lark - the hammock beckons.
Mr Retro
17-08-2002, 16:34
Anyways, to hot for this lark - the hammock beckons. Happy snoooozin'
Caspar Hauser
17-08-2002, 18:10
From BBC News:
Gun crime rally called off (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2199951.stm)
A rival rally has forced organisers to call off a march against the twin problems of gun crime and crack cocaine in south London.
Church leaders and politicians had been due to join the Reclaiming our Community demonstration in Brixton.
But dozens of people were also staging a rally in the same area which they said was organised by Pan Africanists.
Organisers of the march against gun crime decided to call it off in the interests of public order. ...
William of Walworth
17-08-2002, 22:31
Stig and I passed this on the 133 bus from Kennington to Streatham (we were on our way to the free festie on Streatham Common ... :) )
Even from a brief sighting from a top deck window it looked/sounded VERY hardcore, Final Call sellers much in evidence :(
Interesting information above. Looks like it was hijacked :(
Mrs Magpie
17-08-2002, 22:38
Well, all I know about the Pan Africanists in a personal sense rather than reading about them, is that Robert Mugabe and the Zimbabwean Govt. is Pan-African. The Pan-African Movement don't much care for the African National Congress (ANC)...this meant that black friends in Zimbabwe had to wait for us friends here in London to send newspaper cuttings and videos about the release of Nelson Mandela from prison because it rated barely a terse sentence in newspapers in Zimbabwe (the big news in Zimbabwe that day was the wedding of Sally Mugabe's niece :rolleyes: )
I'm a bit glad actually that the march has been postponed because it was too damn hot today.....my son got quite queasy and distressed by the heat and had to be led into the air-conditioned coolness of the Albert for cold drink and lie-down (no smart-arse remarks about being in the genes you bastards!)
MORE TREES IN WINDRUSH SQUARE FOR SHADE PLEASE, LAMBETH COUNCIL!
Mrs M
Whaddaya mean "lazy tabloid hacks"?
Regards
Lazy Tabloid Hack (well, it's just way too hot)
;)
Lots of misinformation on this thread :rolleyes:
The other rally had been organised as part of a worldwide event to discuss the issue of reparations for slavery and to celebrate the birthday of Marcus Garvey who was born on August 17th 1887. Similar meetings were synchronised to occur all over the world on that day, the rally in Brixton had been organised well in advance of the Trident rally, the organisers had asked Lee Jasper to link the two events/issues for some time, but had received no reply.
Whilst acknowledging that there is a problem with guns and crack in the community they sought to solve the problems using a more holistic approach and concerns were raised about the fact that black people in Brixton do not manufacture the guns or the crack which are multi million pound industries, yet these products are finding their way into black communities leading to further criminalisation of these communities.
The Pan-Africanist's organised the rally, but the people who contributed were black community groups and leaders from all across London, this included Uhuru, the Society of Black Lawyers, the Campaign for Truth and Justice, the African Peoples Socialist Party, the Nation of Islam, the black clergy etc etc as well as speakers from Barbados, Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa.
The message being given was that now was a critical time for Africans and members of the diaspora, terrible things are occurring in Africa and the wounds of slavery still haven't been healed. It was a time for healing and action.
Further meetings were organised as an offshoot from this event, a delegation was organised to send to the African and African Descendants World Conference Against Racism (AAD WCAR) to be held in Barbados on 2.10.02,
a petition was prepared to take the British government and Monarchy to court over the issue of reparations and over £500 was raised to pay for the event which had received no government grants or other official funding.
The only downside the event was when the police, who had been watching the event from a distance, decided to harass a white girl who was sitting with some black friends, they kept asking her name and where she was from, a black man confronted the police as to their reasons for asking the questions afterwhich the police turned on this man. Luckily we managed to pull the guy away so that nothing could spoil the peaceful demonstration, the police then wandered off apparently having lost all interest in the young white girl that they were so apparently concerned about earlier. :rolleyes:
http://uk.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/metafiles/cnv00013ikdrla.jpg
Mrs Magpie
19-08-2002, 10:51
Before I turned up I had already been told that there was to be a 'counter-demonstration' but no other information other than there was a possibility of trouble...Apart from the dates fuck-up, I think that put some people off from attending......at least one person that I know of didn't come because of that info.....I knew nothing about the other event until I had been there for a while.....it was then obvious that it wasn't counter at all....just different.....doesn't surprise me that there was a 'Lee Jasper didn't get back to us' element...he's famous for that, and I have been a victim of this myself before. It was a real shame that some young performers from JA and America didn't get to perform at the event....They are going back tomorrow I think......
I looked for you there Jo but I got bad-vibed a bit when I came over, & my boy felt ill so I didn't persevere...glad you had an interesting day......
William of Walworth
19-08-2002, 11:26
No disrespect to the demo Jo, if it was as you describe it, and thanks for that additional information. I suppose I was guilty of going on what had already appeared on the thread, and on a very fleeting top deck of bus impression ....
It certainly does seem though that there was a fair amount of confusion and disorganisation ... ????
Are hatboy and others completely wrong about all this, then?? :confused:
I'm not sure William, I turned up for the Trident rally at 1pm but found mostly members of the press and police hanging around in an empty square.
I moved over to the other square to see what was happening at the reparations demo then found that the Trident rally had been called off.
I guess organising 2 rallies on the same day in the same place could lead to confusion, it would be interesting to know who grants permission for these rallies to take place and find out why both events were allowed to clash.
I heard that the Trident rally has only been postponed for a couple of weeks which will allow people to attend at a later date.
Thanks for that additional information, Jo, and nice to have met you.
It wasn't clear to me at the time whether the Reparations rally had been organised as a spoiler, although it struck me that it was well organised if that was the case. But, on getting back home and reading up on it, it was clear that this was part of a global event timed to coincided with Marcus Garvey's anniversary. So, a major cock up of organisation which may well be down to Lee Jasper or not.
That said, I don't see how the two could have been combined. A single rally which said we're sick of this stuff and we want it tackled at every aspect of the supply chain, and not just demonising black people, would attract broad support. But if you mix in some of the frankly racist stuff that the Reparations demo was coming out with, you would alienate the majority community in Lambeth. In that respect, there were a number of well known Lambeth figures (black and white) turned up to the Crack rally. I didn't recognise any of the people prominent at the Reparations rally as being local; why did they choose Brixton rather than some central point?
On the point of Reparations, I'm unclear on what basis this is meant to work. Who pays whom, and how much? From my viewpoint the best way to make reparations is to:
Face up to the lessons of history;
For the West to accept their responsibilities for the state Africa is in;
To defeat racism in the West, ensuring equality of opportunity regardless of race, inclusing positive action to level the playing field.
It wasn't clear to me that that was what the Reparations rally was about.
As regards the policing, I'm sorry to hear your friend was hassled. Everything I saw, at both events, was extremely low key.
Mrs Magpie
19-08-2002, 15:44
I recognised a few faces at the Reparations Rally, but they weren't speakers....unfortunately they were people I think would have been on the Trident march...because the Trident one wasn't very clearly defined, and was running pretty late (the sound lorry, music etc not there) people just went to the Reparations thing which appeared to be the only thing going on.
John Wisehammer
19-08-2002, 17:23
I'd be very interested to hear anything from reparations supporters, esp wrt to deciding who pays what and how much.
Mrs Magpie
19-08-2002, 19:55
Well, I'm no expert, the info here was from the World Service. In America what is being asked for by the reparation movement is better education, housing and health care, which seems fair enough....black women in America are four times more likely to die in childbirth than white American women....Slavery is not that long ago...,three generations maybe? And certainly the most appalling lack of civil rights existed in my lifetime, both here and in the USA. Things are better but still not good enough.
Originally posted by Happy Happy Jo Wonderland
I heard that the Trident rally has only been postponed for a couple of weeks which will allow people to attend at a later date.
If that's true, then it's completely pointless.
That was one of the worst-organised demonstrations I've ever seen (aand as a veteran of the disability movement, I have more than a little experience of badly-organised demonstrations).
When I arrived at 12.30, en route to meet pooka and Mrs M in the Albert, I thought I'd got the wrong day. There was nothing in Windrush Square apart from three police officers. No sign of a stage, or banner announcing the march, groups starting to line up or people milling around.
At no point did any banner appear to say there was a demonstration. In terms of making things visible, we did a better job when four of us organised the Brian Paddick stall at the country show. Would it have killed them to pay a couple of hundred quid for some balloons?
It didn't help that the fliers put out had given the wrong date, and that it had been organised on the same day as the reparations thing. But it looked like the basic problem was that no-one had done the basic spadework you need to bring people out on the streets. For something like this, about community concerns, all the church groups and residents groups and neighbourhood watches should all have been represented. But obviously, no-one had got them involved.
It's just not good enough to organise a few speakers and a band and assume that vast crowds are going to turn up. I would have thought Lee Jasper ws an experienced enough politician to know that.
William of Walworth
20-08-2002, 09:38
Sounds harsh but fair to me, ats ...
RubyToogood
20-08-2002, 14:01
Personally I think there's a place for separatism, although I would see it as a tactic rather than an ultimate goal. I mean if people can't organise separately to discuss common issues, how are they even going to be able to define the problem? Not to mention the sense of empowerment that being part of a separatist community for a period can give you. I learnt and benefited a lot from my phase as a separatist feminist. Even though it's not something I'd want to argue for as some kind of permanent solution, it gave me a step up and I respect other people's right to experience the same thing.
Mr Retro
20-08-2002, 15:13
Since Saturday I've been reading up on separatism and I can't see how there is any place for it in a multicultural society in any shape or form.
Not to mention the sense of empowerment that being part of a separatist community for a period can give you.
Don't you think it would be very difficult for somebody who feels disriminated against, and so turns to black seperatism as a tactic to have their voice heard, to then turn their back on that empowerment?
I understand the point you're making Jo, but the question is how to encompass difference and commonality. It's understandable that groups of people that have a common experience should want to work together to develop their understanding and strategies for change. But that can all too easily end up digging trenches between themselves and other groups which become very hard to bridge later.
Whilst its possible for individuals to move from a "separatist" mindset to an inclusive one, its much harder for organisations that define themselves in terms of difference. Not least because the most influential individuals in such organisations will have most to loose. In a different context, Northern Ireland gives us a good example of how the institutionalisation of polarity becomes rooted.
Separatism has no place in my world Ruby.
That's a good photo Jo (and as you know I've no problem being surrounded by black folks), but when I went the atmosphere was unfriendly and a speaker was shouting crap about "black people this... white people that..." as I said. While I might appreciate some of the motives and emotion behind the concept of "reparation" I've no time for humourless blokes screaming their divisive views through megaphones... whoever they are.
fat hamster
20-08-2002, 20:30
Originally posted by Mr Retro
Don't you think it would be very difficult for somebody who feels disriminated against, and so turns to black seperatism as a tactic to have their voice heard, to then turn their back on that empowerment?
If black separatism can be compared with feminist separatism, (and I write as a white woman, so how can I know?) then I would say the empowerment which one gains from having one's voice heard by one's own people is not lost when one later chooses to work in the wider world.
I feel the same as Ruby when I remember my separatist days, "it gave me a step up and I respect other people's right to experience the same thing".
fat hamster
20-08-2002, 20:33
Ooops! Btw, I'm not from Brixton (tho' I was arrested and strip searched there thirty years ago, but that's another story! ;) ), but I have been following this thread with interest because of the crack problem in Bristol. So I hope it's okay to post here ...
fat hamster
20-08-2002, 20:42
Originally posted by hatboy
... the atmosphere was unfriendly and a speaker was shouting crap about "black people this... white people that..." as I said. While I might appreciate some of the motives and emotion behind the concept of "reparation" I've no time for humourless blokes screaming their divisive views through megaphones... whoever they are.
At the risk of sticking my neck out altogether too far in someone else's forum: try substituting, "women this" ... "men that", or even, "gay people this ... straight people that". Still humourless and divisive, I agree, but perhaps easier for a white gay man to relate to?
RubyToogood
20-08-2002, 21:28
Exactly, FH.
When I was younger I didn't feel that there was a place for me in society, so I found a society that DID have a place for me in it. For the first time I felt accepted and valued and it transformed my experience of the world for the better. I can well imagine black people feeling the same in a predominantly white society.
And if black people choose to organise separately I don't expect to be welcomed into those places, why would I? It's not about that. And perhaps they're giving back some of the unwelcomingness they feel from white society - not necessarily justifiable but certainly understandable.
[edited to remove some stuff]
Hatboy I can understand that you felt uncomfortable, I was also accused of being a spy because I was taking pictures at the rally :rolleyes:
On the issue of Reparations I have tried to write a synopsis of the justification for reparations and how these might be delivered, I have used information from speakers at the rally and some of the leaflets handed out, but it is only a rough and brief translation.
Justified because
Reparations have been paid to Jewish people by the German government.
Reparations were paid to slave owners at the time of abolition for loss of trade which amounted to £20million, (much more in today's money).
Maori people have received reparations from the new Zealand government for illegal seizure of their land.
In Legal terms this amounts to
Acknowledgement of wrongdoing and restoration of the injured party to the position that the injured party would have been in been in had the wrong doing not occurred. Although it is almost impossible to calculate what position Africa would be in today had the destruction by Europeans and Arabs not occurred.
They want the following factors taken into account
The value of the millions of Africans killed as a result of the slave trade, the impact of rape, torture, destruction of African families and other institutions, the cultural genocide which has distorted the African identity, the Benin bronzes and other artefacts looted from Africa to be returned, settlements for the Africans who were killed or maimed fighting in conflicts on behalf of Europeans which systematically denied them the human rights and interests in which they were fighting to restore to Europe, the present system of international oppression, debt and domination as perpetrated by the UN, IMF, World Bank, G7 etc to be dismantled.
Account taken of the impact of the policy of political and judicial murder of African leaders: Lumumba, Cabral, Machel, Kimarrthi, Rodney et al. The programme of assassinations by the US Government against members of the Black Panthers and others, the false trials and false imprisonment of prominent Africans: Marcus Garvey, Munia Abu Jamal, and police brutality towards Africans of all descriptions the list goes on and on and on.
They would like a recognition that
The physical and mental enslavement of Africans by Arabs and Europeans amounts to the greatest and most barbaric crime against Humanity ever committed in human history.
Many generations continue to suffer the affects of the trade
A conservative estimate of 300 Million of the most virile and productive African men, women and children perished in this crime.
Africa continues to suffer from the current system of oppression and exploitation.
One group rejected the idea of a financial settlement as they thought that Western capitalism does not have any system geared at producing social or economic justice.
They conclude that reparations is first and foremost about Africans reclaiming themselves and recognising that African culture is the main tool for the liberation of African people and that reparations is fundamentally a process of self emancipation. they would like the re-education of communities as to their African culture and history books to be corrected. Then the elimination of debt as well as land and property to be returned etc etc.
I got the feeling that different groups wanted different things , so this is not a definitive list or account.
John Wisehammer
20-08-2002, 23:08
I have absolutely no problem with a lot of that stuff - there's no loss and plenty of psychic gain in acknowledging the slave trade and colonialism, and much of that is pretty uncontroversial. But OTOH, there are a lot of different things happening to a lot of different people there that are being bagged together on pretty spurious grounds (there isn't a straight line between the slave trade, colonialism, the IMF and police brutality, actually), and there's an element of historical revisionism too: "enslavement of Africans by Arabs and Europeans etc" makes it sound like no Africans were ever traders or profiteers, which is simply untrue (quite like the Poles and Balts blaming the Germans for the whole holocaust, if we're going to make that bad analogy). IIRC (and I'm not totally sure) the Ashanti family / tribe thingy in what's now Ghana were major traders (for instance) and 25% of the population on the territory oiver which they ruled were slaves (sorry half remembered, don't have the book any more etc). It's also a bit unclear which Africans and which communities are being discussed - African or African diaspora communities?
I'm not sure which history books or what property is being talked about either - in Africa? In the UK? The latter is pretty much a question for African Ministries of Education (though there are arguably plenty of opportunities for developed countries to for instance support financially academic research into African interpretations of history) and the former is a bit of a question - after decolonisation, most African land was nationalised and more recently privatised again - and sold to TNCs but also African capitalists.
As for financial reparations - well, who pays? When Zimbabwe was being colonised, for instance, my ancestors were sub-subsistance linen workers and potato pickers in Armagh, so they didn't benefit from colonisation like Lord Lt Chumley-Smythe of Nyasaland (or whoever it was that raked in the money) did. Or is it people who are still benefitting from UK capitalism - which would mean rich black British people would contribute over poor white British people?
Who gets it? African states? Individuals? How are neoimperialist debates about the allocation of aid and development money avoided in repararations? And how do you separate colonial surplus extraction and postcolonial indigenous fuckups in financially quantifying the effect of colonialism and imperialism?
Separatism: as a man who once lived on the edge of a large radical feminist separatist community, I agree with Ruby and Hamster. I felt their exclusiveness empowered the women concerned, and taught us men a lot too. However there was antipathy. mainly towards and from women on our side of the fence, whose role as collaborators was strongly challenged. Us men were largely bystanders in this (a valuable lesson in itself :) who never really felt threatened.
Mr Retro
21-08-2002, 08:57
Two great posts Jo and John. Learning more here than a week of searching through info on the web.
Can anybody recommend some good relativly unbiased books?
fat hamster
21-08-2002, 09:22
Originally posted by John Wisehammer
... there are a lot of different things happening to a lot of different people there that are being bagged together on pretty spurious grounds ... and there's an element of historical revisionism too ... It's also a bit unclear which Africans and which communities are being discussed ... I'm not sure which history books or what property is being talked about either ... <heavily edited to save bandwidth>
As HHJW said in her first post on this thread, "(the rally was) organised as part of a worldwide event to discuss the issue of reparations for slavery and to celebrate the birthday of Marcus Garvey." So the issues are bound to be less than fully clear at this stage.
As for financial reparations - well, who pays? ... Who gets it? ...
HHJW again: "one group rejected the idea of a financial settlement as they thought that Western capitalism does not have any system geared at producing social or economic justice." And yes, this is only one group - as above, the debate is very much still in progress.
How are neoimperialist debates about the allocation of aid and development money avoided in repararations?
How about: by allowing black people the space and respect they deserve to debate and organise around this massively important issue for themselves! :rolleyes:
Another aspect of this that i have read about, but never quite got the whole picture, is the role of africans themselves in the slave trade.
Given that slave traders never penetrated the interior of west africa, the actual rounding up of slaves was done by coastal ethnic groups, who would raid their enemies inland, in exchange for guns and horses etc That's what Bruce Chatwin's "The Viceroy of Ouidah" is about. How on earth does that fit in to the reparations movement?
fat hamster
21-08-2002, 09:55
Originally posted by newbie
Us men ... never really felt threatened.
Lived around radical feminist separatists and never really felt threatened, eh http://www.longdog.org.uk/smilies4/newbie.gif ?
Mmwah hah ha ha ha! http://www.longdog.org.uk/smilies4/spidereek.gif
<fat hamster polishes up double-headed axe and does gleeful goddess-invoking dance from way back ... http://www.longdog.org.uk/smilies4/wiggle.gif>
John Wisehammer
21-08-2002, 10:44
FH: thanks a lot for your contribution - I've raised some questions and you've said "those questions are being raised". That's not very helpful. I was actually hoping someone could answer them - or say what other people's answers were - rather than have someone get snippy with me for no reason.
"How about : by allowing black people the space and respect they deserve to debate and organise around this massively important issue for themselves! :rolleyes: "
You're assuming that there is perfect unity of interest between all black people across the world but the fact is that you don't have be white to be patronising or out of touch with people whose interests you are supposedly serving. If for instance you would say that British black people would be in charge of allocating reparations to black Africans, then my question is - and it's an important one - how do you stop accusations and perpatration of the imposition of donor values and objectives onto recipients? How do you balance accountability/democracy with transparency and best use? How do you avoid replicating the same corruption, short-termism, opacity and accusations of donor (or moneyholder) dominance that taint many aid/development projects atm?
Fat Hamster said:
"At the risk of sticking my neck out altogether too far in someone else's forum: try substituting, "women this" ... "men that", or even, "gay people this ... straight people that". Still humourless and divisive, I agree, but perhaps easier for a white gay man to relate to?"
This made me angry. You don't know me Fat Hamster. I am by no means a typical white gay man. As it happens at the moment I have more straight black people as friends than white gay. I would find all the above variants equally annoying. I've no objection to minorities, be it gay, black or women, needing a separate space sometimes, but when this spills over into making daft generalisations about others then that's crap. And that is the foundation upon which people often build their prejudices.
I'm not against the concept of reparation btw, but I can see from this very informative thread (thanks Jo and John I think) how difficult it would be to implement.
John Wisehammer
21-08-2002, 13:39
How are you (FH, RT) and those other punters using the word separatism? Is it supposed to mean separate private institutions, separate public institutions or completely separate lives (ghettos)? I'm curious.
fat hamster
21-08-2002, 21:37
Originally posted by John Wisehammer
FH: thanks a lot for your contribution - I've raised some questions and you've said "those questions are being raised". That's not very helpful. I was actually hoping someone could answer them - or say what other people's answers were - rather than have someone get snippy with me for no reason.
Sorry JW - difficulty of communicating clearly in cyberspace etc. -maybe I misinterpreted you. It seemed to me that you were responding quite destructively to HHJW's informative post, i.e. by asking questions in order to pull holes in what she'd written, even though it was clearly offered as a summary of various groups' differing opinions and ideas.
fat hamster
21-08-2002, 21:58
Originally posted by John Wisehammer
You're assuming that there is perfect unity of interest between all black people across the world
Not at all. The issue is massively complex, and your questions IMO are all valid.
However, I stand by my view that discussion of reparations for the enslavement of Africans is primarily the prerogative of those who have been directly negatively affected by it, i.e. black people.
Would you think it was okay for an able-bodied person to tell a disabled person what they need from society?
Of course white folks are entitled to an opinion. But however uncomfortable it feels (and it can feel very uncomfortable, in my experience, to give up one's power as an oppressor!) the role of white people in this debate is to listen, learn and wait ...
If anyone wishes to learn more about the reparations movement I think they should start here.
http://www.blink.org.uk/subsections.asp?grp=46
I think john has raised some good points which are also a springboard for discussion, I am not a separatist and feel that these issues can be discussed openly allowing for differing viewpoints to be heard.
I do however understand those who have a certain desire to express opinions within closed meetings as a vehicle for the genesis of new and perhaps controversial ideas.
As to who gives and who gains as a result of reparations, that has yet to be debated, as far as I can tell the movement has yet to determine the logistics of this, and so far they have used examples from other reparation movements as a model of what they themselves hope to achieve.
fat hamster
21-08-2002, 22:23
Originally posted by hatboy
This made me angry.
Ooops. Well .. er.. "anger is an energy", hatboy ... :D
You don't know me Fat Hamster.
Well, only from your posts. And do please let me say that I hold you in high regard as a result of what I have read over the last few months.
I am by no means a typical white gay man.
Is there such a thing? A lot of my friends are white gay men, and I don't think any of them is 'typical'. :confused: I'm certainly not a typical fat white single mum living in a council flat ...
Hey, I'm sure we both have plenty of good reasons to hate stereotyping. (After all it's one of the classic tools of oppression.) My apologies if that's what you thought I was doing to you. I was trying to illustrate a point ...
I've no objection to minorities, be it gay, black or women, needing a separate space sometimes
I am relieved that we agree here ...
but when this spills over into making daft generalisations about others then that's crap.
And in many ways I agree with you here too. It is crap. And it's stereotyping. But IMO making daft generalisations is an essential part of the healing process - it's exactly what separate space is for. :)
Are there not three elements here:
1. That people with a common identity, history, disadvantage or oppression should have "space" where they can develop their pride, personal stregnth and strategies for persuading the rest of the world of their case and the need for change. Unquestionably valid.
2. That people can define further those spaces by demonising those outside. Whilst this may give a spurious sense of stregnth to those on the inside, ultimately a dead end. One of the most disatrous aspects of early feminism was when it sought to write off men. It was also a poor tactical move, even though women account for 50+% of the population. How much more so, in a UK context, for Black people.
3. The busisness of reparations. It is certainly the case that history should be squarely acknowledged and the lessons learned, but it should not predicate the future. The reasons for fighting racism in the "developed" world and for proper support to development in Africa are in the here and now - they're because it is right, by 21st century moral and political standards.
I've read some of the links you posted Jo, but I'm still unclear who makes what reparations to whom, and on what basis. How far back do we go? Should we judge 18th century people by 21st century standards and do their heirs (if we can determine who they are) carry a responsibilty for them? Reparations by German companies and the German state to victims of the holocaust were made within 1,at most 2, generations. There were clear, traceable links.
The worry must be that this so easily becomes an arguement that one group of people must make reparations, purely because they are white, to another group of people, purely because they are black. Which must be racist? Or am I missing something?
fat hamster
22-08-2002, 00:10
Originally posted by pooka
Are there not three elements here:
Nicely sorted, Pooka
1. That people with a common identity, history, disadvantage or oppression should have "space" where they can develop their pride, personal stregnth and strategies for persuading the rest of the world of their case and the need for change. Unquestionably valid.
Yup. <sigh> And roll on the day when everyone thinks that is "unquestionably valid".
2. That people can define further those spaces by demonising those outside.
True. And as Hatboy said, "that is the foundation upon which people often build their prejudices".
Whilst this may give a spurious sense of stregnth to those on the inside, ultimately a dead end.
Sure is. Which is one (amongst many) reasons that I am not, these days, a separatist as such.
But it is also so, so important for people -all people - to be able to express their feelings of hate, distrust, rage etc. in a safe space.
As an oppressed woman, it was the beginning of liberation for me to go through a phase of badmouthing men in an environment where I was understood, and not attacked for my views.
As a white person (so in this case, an oppressor) some of the biggest shifts I've had in tackling my own racism have occurred in the company of other white people. Again, the need was to express - and thereby move beyond - negative feelings which, quite frankly, would probably have been downright unhelpful for black people to have had to listen to!
It's a very thin line which divides 'demonising' from the necessary exploration of bad feelings and negative experiences. At the end of the day, I think that one must simply "trust the process".
One of the most disatrous aspects of early feminism was when it sought to write off men. It was also a poor tactical move, even though women account for 50+% of the population.
Uuuuhhh ... are you male by any chance? :D My experience (over nearly fifty years) of feminism is that although the struggle's been hard - and it's not over yet! - we've largely avoided disaster and our tactics have worked rather well.
Of course, it may not have felt like that to the men in positions of power around us. ;)
3. The busisness of reparations. It is certainly the case that history should be squarely acknowledged and the lessons learned, but it should not predicate the future. The reasons for fighting racism in the "developed" world and for proper support to development in Africa are in the here and now - they're because it is right, by 21st century moral and political standards.
I entirely agree.
The worry must be that this so easily becomes an arguement that one group of people must make reparations, purely because they are white, to another group of people, purely because they are black. Which must be racist? Or am I missing something?
Again, I would say, "trust the process". Personally, I can't believe that the international black community, hugely varied, articulate and gifted as it is, will end up asking for anything that daft ...
Thanks for the explanation Fat Hamster.
Originally posted by fat hamster
Lived around radical feminist separatists and never really felt threatened, eh http://www.longdog.org.uk/smilies4/newbie.gif ?
Mmwah hah ha ha ha!
Not really, not in a personal sense. Politically and culturally, sure: as you said "listen, learn and wait ", but non-separatist women were challenged much more than men. We were generally ignored, and learnt to ignore, thereby getting along without threat or friction
But there was no real competition for resources: indeed the non-separatists had facilities (food co-op, community centre and so on, all squatted) which the separatists wouldn't use, a case of cutting off their nose to spite their face which seemed a bit silly (though they may have had their own equivalents, I've no idea).
Had there been real competition for resources we, men, might have felt more personally threatened. That's probably true for any separatist grouping.
Thanks for the magnificent smiley, btw. Some people have far more time on their hands than is good for them http://www.longdog.org.uk/smilies/spin.gif
fat hamster
22-08-2002, 20:13
Originally posted by newbie
Thanks for the magnificent smiley, btw.
My pleasure. It's one of Longdog's, actually. http://www.longdog.org.uk/smilies/drawface.gif
I did see the Reparations demo as I was in the balcony of the Riyzy bar at the time.I did post my observations on the Pan Africa thread.What disturbed me was the comments from the speakers.Some of these were:
That Black Women should get back into the kitchen.
The film "monsters Ball" was criticised for showing a relationship between a Black women and a White man.Haille Barry the actress who won an Oscar for her performance is in fact mixed race.
Africa had been invaded for centuries starting in 700BC but had always resisted invaders.
It seemed to me that the speakers represented a separatist ideology that is the mirror image of American style white suprematism.They want some mythical pure "African"identity.No one is racially pure except in exceptional circumstances where geography has cut them off from the rest of the world.For example in Africa at the present time their are a lot of people of Indian descent.I used to know a Kenyan Asian.She had never been to India and now lives in the UK.She felt she had a hybrid identity.She was part Indian,African and British.If the people at the reparetions demo had their way I fear what would happen to her if she was still in Kenya.The British encouraged the Indians to come to Africa in the 19th century.Would a purist ideology as represented at the reparations demo allow the Indians to stay in Africa?I think not.
I have not read all this thread yet so I apologize if I am repeating observations already made.
Good stuff HHJW.
I for one would love to see the benefactors of sick colonialist mentality stripped of their estates to help pay recompense for such crimes.
But I wonder, how far back can you take this... to the Greeks, the Normans, the Saxons?
Will we be demanding repatriation from Denmark for the rape and pillage of pre-gelded society in Britain?
Silly comparison I know, but the line has to be drawn.
I guess if it can be proven that families are living on wealth born out of exploitation of Africans then fair enough.
Wow - it would decimate Israel's economy though, being as the majority of those keeping book on such matters were of Jewish descent....
Potentially life changing and world changing stuff.
But yeah, if the Maoris got compensation, why not?
Who pays, and how do we make them?
That is surely the question...
Top thread, BTW.
;)
fat hamster
23-08-2002, 08:15
See the BBC News front page today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2210545.stm
fat hamster
23-08-2002, 08:18
Originally posted by Gramsci
Haille Barry the actress who won an Oscar for her performance is in fact mixed race.
Mixed race = black when it comes to suffering the effects of racism.
William of Walworth
23-08-2002, 08:26
Absolutely fat h, but if Gramsci's account is correct a certain minority of hardline black separatists would not accept her as black, so she would cop it both ways :(
Originally posted by Gramsci
That Black Women should get back into the kitchen.
The film "monsters Ball" was criticised for showing a relationship between a Black women and a White man.Haille Barry the actress who won an Oscar for her performance is in fact mixed race.
Gramsci I too was somewhat concerned about certain things said at the rally, but I thought I would put the two points made above into more context.
The call for women to go back to their kitchens was made in responce to what they referred to as the shitty food being served up in 'Muckdonalds' and 'Dirty Fried Chicken' as well as the fact that these corporations make vast profits from the black community whilst giving very little back.
THe Film 'Monsters Ball' was not criticised at all! THe criticism was of what Halli Berry had to do in order to win her Oscar, which was to sleep with a racist prison guard in some of the most graphic sex scenes ever seen.
I have never seen this film so cannot comment.
But I can say that the purity of the African race was never brought up as an issue, in fact there were quite a few people of mixed heritage in attendance and as organisers.
I certainly was never made to feel uncomfortable because of my racial background.
If anyone is free today there is a program of events lined up in Greenwich to commemorate the victims of the slave trade.
See here for more info.
http://www.antislavery.org/archive/other/LondonTSTcommemoration.htm
fat hamster
23-08-2002, 09:38
Posted by William of Walworth
Absolutely fat h, but if Gramsci's account is correct a certain minority of hardline black separatists would not accept her as black, so she would cop it both ways
You're right of course, WoW.
I start to feel out of my depth here, as a white person ... I don't like that sort of extremism one bit, but remembering the lessons from my radical separatist lesbian days, I believe it is appropriate for white people to take a back seat and wait for the black community to sort this out. (White people still have plenty to do meanwhile, addressing our own racism!)
As Gramsci said, "No one is racially pure except in exceptional circumstances where geography has cut them off from the rest of the world." IMO pure 'African' identity is a fantasy similar to the radical feminist separatist ideal.
Neither pure 'African' identity nor radical feminist separatism is ever likely to become a dominant culture, but both are essential stages of liberation (i.e. any political change needs its 'vanguard', its 'extremist fringe', in order to challenge the thinking of the majority.)
And, though I no longer espouse separatism as a way of life, feminism is still 'my culture' in a very special way, and 'women's space' is still important to me.
<edited for clarity>
John Wisehammer
23-08-2002, 10:27
Originally posted by fat hamster
IMO pure 'African' identity is a fantasy similar to the radical feminist separatist ideal.
Very tangentially - I saw a docco* a couple of years ago which followed a bunch of African Americans on a heritage/history tour of Liberia. In many ways, it was quite touching / shocking (esp the footage of the stone pens at the harbour which were used to shove slaves into "the bottomless pit" of the ships) but there were two things that would, perhaps, stick in the throat of some of the speakers from the rally**.
Firstly, the guide that was showing the Americans around was herself the descendant of one of the largest (African) slave traders in the area and spoke quite candidly of her guilt (in the sense of feeling guilty, not culpability), and this caused a degree of friction with the tour-ists.
Secondly, there was a scene where one of the Americans collared a Liberian geezer in a market (IIRC) and started chatting about being African brothers and Mama Africa and similar well-meaning sort of things. The camera followed the Liberian guy and asked him afterwards, so what do you think of the American guy and what he was saying, and his reply was something along the lines of "well, they mean well but they don't have a clue about us - I mean, they're very rich and in a couple of weeks they are going to fly back to America, but we're poor in this country and face different problems". (They were, by the way, all relatively rich middle class people, as the tour cost a few grand to go on, as you'd expect). Which in a way was quite sad for the American because it showed how he had been deprived of an older collective identity by slavery.
Which is part of the reason I'm sceptical about people wanking on about a mythical African brotherhood/unity (just as much as Slavic or Celtic unity) when there are the same types of tension and conflict as everywhere else in the world (and they're not all the fault of outsiders). What's to stop (relatively well educated and rich) black people in the North hijacking any reparations process and themselves behaving in a "neocolonial" manner?
*was a while ago, half remembered, can't remember who by, apologies for mistakes, etc etc.
**(that's the impression I would get - I wasn't there to hear them speak, so I don't know - apologies if I am getting it wrong).
WHATEVER
23-08-2002, 11:30
People tend to treat all Africans as one big homogeneous race but they're not.Africa's a vast continent with almost 50 countries,each with their own distinctive culture and identities.You cant just lump them all together.An Ethiopian's got very little in common with a Nigerian except sharing the same continent.I saw a similar program like the one you saw JW(could have been the same one).To the native African the African-American was just some rich American guy.Had absolutely nothing in common with him.All civilisations praticed some form of slavery,the Romans,Greeks,Egyptians even the English.The Irish diaspora to America in the ninthteenth century was partly caused by a famine which the English did very little to relieve and political repression. Their ancestors today could demand compensation from the British government.There are still people alive today with personnel experience of the Holocaust and its right that they're recompensed but there's probably no African American alive today with any experience of slavery.Dont get me wrong African Americans were treated like shit even when slavery was outlawed in America.It was'nt until the civil rights bill in 1967?that things gradualy improved for them.Its a pretty complex subject but its best to look forward not backwards.You cant turn the clock back to right a wrong unfortunatly.
I see a lot of responses to my original post.Still have not had time to read whole of thread.I would like to make a few responses.
I have seen the film Monsters Ball unlike HHJW.HHJW argues that the speaker at the rally was not talking about the film but the fact that H Barri had to sleep with a racist white to get an Oscar.In the film Bob Thornton plays the prison gaurd.By the end of the film he has confronted his racist family and past and is a changed person.I wont say to much about the film as it would spoil it if u went to see it.The film had a liberal message that people could change or at least try.The film did contain graphic sex scenes.Is this a problem?Neither actor demeaned themselves and the sex was in the context of the film.It was not gratuitous.The speaker at the rally was getting worked up because it was a Black woman having a relationship with a white man.I remember in the 60s there was an episode of Star Trek in which Captain Kirk kisses Uhura.This was banned by white racists in the Southern states.The speaker at the rally had a similar separatist mentality.Several speakers implicity spoke up for the purity of the "African" race.As Wisehammer brought up the reality of African history was that some Africans become rich through the slave trade.(I saw the documentary he was talking about).
HHJW also says that Black women were told to get back in the kitchen as a reaction to McDonalds and Kentucky.This seems particularly chauvinist.Why shouldnt the men cook more?Ive heard this kind of argument before.The Nation of Islam has some very socially conservative views on women.
Fat Hamster says that mixed race = black where racism is concerned.However there are some Black men who object to Black women going out with white men.Being mixed race(or in a mixed race relationship) can cause problems from both communities one comes from.
Fat Hamster also argues that a radical separatist politics is important as a vangaurd to challenge society at least initally.I can see there is an argument here.However that might have applied in the 60s when second wave Feminism and Black Power were new.We are now living in the 21 century.A lot of theoretical work has been done since the early days.When I was watching the Reparations Rally a friend who I was with said that this was like going back to the early 70s politically.
I do however object to the idea of a separatist vanguard.Take the ANC for example.They contained a wide membership of Indians,Black Africans and some Whites(mainly Communist Party members).They wanted a multiracial South Africa and fought for it.Also the second wave Feminism of the 60s contained many women who were not separatists.Such as Marxist Feminists.The idea that u have to be part of a separatist vangaurd before u can challenge the dominant values of society is completely wrong.I am not sure what Fat Hamster means by Feminist Separatism.I remember that there used to be real arguments between for example SM Dykes and certain kinds of Separatist Feminist.There was a crrtain strand of Separatism in which ones behaviour was highly proscribed.Which is why some women left that kind of Feminism behind eventually.
John Wisehammer
23-08-2002, 15:46
Gramsci, just out of interest (because I think it probably does make a difference in these sorts of conversations), what's your race/ sex / sexuality? Feel free not to answer, obviously - everyone's entitled to their anonymity if they choose to.
Hope you don't mind me asking (FTR, I'm white, male, straight).
Reply to Wisehammer.
I actually dont think my race or sexual preferances should have to be stated before I express opinions on these matters.If I said I was a Black gay women whould this mean u would give my opinions more credibility?Just because I am none of the above does not mean what I am saying is incorrect.
fat hamster
24-08-2002, 16:39
Originally posted by Gramsci
Just because I am none of the above does not mean what I am saying is incorrect.
Gramsci dear, maybe it's time you got round to reading the rest of the thread ... ;)
fat hamster
24-08-2002, 17:24
Originally posted by Gramsci
Fat Hamster also argues that a radical separatist politics is important as a vangaurd to challenge society ]at least initally (Hamster's italics).
Not quite. What I said is that separatism is an essential stage of liberation.
When I was watching the Reparations Rally a friend who I was with said that this was like going back to the early 70s politically.
I can well imagine. As someone who was politically active in the early 70s, I expect I would have found it frustrating and depressing. BUT, were the most of people involved in the Reparations Rally politically active thirty years ago? (No doubt some were.) Was the issue of reparations even being widely discussed back then?
The liberation movement isn't one smooth process, unfolding neatly over time. It consists of billions of individual human beings being born, growing up, learning, participating in the world, eventually dying ...
At an individual level, oppression hurts. For many people, separatism (however defined) is vital so that they can start to heal that hurt in a safe environment. Some may even choose a permanently separatist lifestyle (although if this is predicated upon a hatred of the rest of the human race, I would suggest that the healing is incomplete).
Oppression is also confusing - it gets internalised (i.e. people learn to blame themselves), and oppressed groups easily turn on one another. A separatist space is often the best space in which to confront the complexities of oppression.
In a nutshell, I would say that separatism is as important a part of the struggle today as ever.
The idea that u have to be part of a separatist vangaurd before u can challenge the dominant values of society is completely wrong.
Quite. I couldn't agree more.
However, the existence of a vanguard is essential. As I said before, any process of political change needs its 'vanguard', its 'extremist fringe', in order to challenge the thinking of the majority. We don't all need to be separatists, or extremists, but without separate space and extreme ideas, nothing changes.
We need the "lunatic fringe", whether we identify as part of it (I do - heh heh heh! http://www.longdog.org.uk/smilies2/Loco.gif ) or respect it from a distance. :)
http://www.longdog.org.uk/smilies3/soapbox.gif
cynical_bastard
25-08-2002, 03:26
I know someone's mentioned this, but do tribes that enslaved other tribes pay reparations to the tribes they enslaved? Or is it only Europeans and Arabs(quite surprised they didn't mention Jews if it was Nation of Islam) who are supposed to pay reparations?
I have now read through this thread.I see that some of the points that I have raised have already been posted.Whilst I am a white sraight male I do reserve the right to disagree with someones views.It can be just as patronising to hold back and say nothing as though someone because they are oppressed should be treated with kid gloves.I also believe in open frank debate.I do not expect people to agree with me as long as they dont just tell me to be quiet.
As far as separatism as an essential stage of liberation is concerned I still disagree with this politically.I have studied Feminist theory(postmodern).Their are many Feminists that I have met who have never been separatist.They are no less Feminist for that.Also I know from my reading of Feminisn that their have been heated debates within second wave Feminisn on many topics.Unfortunately the separatists within Feminisn spent a lot of their time attacking other Feminists.(Like some Trots who spend their time attacking the rest of the Left rather than the Tories.)The Feminist Barnard Conference is an example(took place in the early 1980s The papers are in book form.I forget the title).This was picketed by other Feminists who objected tosome of the speakers and the topics discussed.
Further reply to Fat Hamster
By the way I find your posts interesting as they contain a point of view and are not bland.
Back to the subject.If u look at my posts on the Lambeth Socialist Party thread u will see that I argue that Feminist and anti Racism should have their own spaces and should not be seen as secondary to the Class struggle.However I do believe that oppressons are interelated.One of my previous posts took the example of an Indian women I knew.She was born and grew up in Kenya.She felt she had a hybrid identity(see the academic Stuart Halls work).She felt she was African,Indian and English.She was also oppressed as a women as,unlike her brothers, she was not allowed to marry out of her race.Separatism cannot do anything for someone like this it might actually make it worse by devaluing their experience.
fat hamster
25-08-2002, 21:00
Originally posted by Gramsci
She was also oppressed as a women as,unlike her brothers, she was not allowed to marry out of her race.Separatism cannot do anything for someone like this it might actually make it worse by devaluing their experience.
<stunned silence>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
</stunned silence> "not allowed" to marry out of her race??? Sounds like a damn good case for some feminist separatist input to me, Gramsci!
fat hamster
25-08-2002, 21:11
Originally posted by Gramsci
If I said I was a Black gay women whould this mean u would give my opinions more credibility?Just because I am none of the above does not mean what I am saying is incorrect.
Not incorrect (well, not necessarily :)) - just completely irrelevant to any political debate taking place amongst separatist blacks and/or gays and/or women!
fat hamster
25-08-2002, 21:40
Originally posted by Gramsci
I do not expect people to agree with me as long as they dont just tell me to be quiet.
No problem. This is not a separatist thread/forum/board! ;)
Their are many Feminists that I have met who have never been separatist.They are no less Feminist for that.
Hmmm ... debatable, I'd say, but then it depends who's defining 'feminist'. However we don't need to pursue that here - no-one's claiming here that anyone is obliged to be separatist.
What I said earlier was that for many people, separatism is vital, and also that a separatist space is often the best space in which to confront the complexities of oppression.
Unfortunately the separatists within Feminisn spent a lot of their time attacking other Feminists.
Too true. :( Which is one reason no separatist group is ever likely to become a dominant culture.
But at risk of becoming repetitive, the safety a separatist environment provides (internal disagreements notwithstanding) is IMO essential, for many people, so that healing and empowerment can begin.
In addition, in my experience, it is within separatist groups that much 'leading edge' thinking is done. The new ideas that result (often after much bitter infighting) have value for everyone when they filter out into the mainstream.
On my previous post I mentioned the Barnard conferance.The book containing papers from the conferance is:
Pleasure and Danger
Exploring female sexuality
ed. Carole S. Vance
PANDORA 1984
I have been looking up some of my books that I read some time ago.A book that covers some of the history of second wave politics is:
Straight Sex by Lynne Segal (Virago 1994)
If u wish to see where I get my angle on these issues it is from books like the above.I have been looking again at Segals book which I read some time ago but only have had time to reread a bit of it this weekend.
As for my Indian friend the point I was making was that for many people oppression or identity is complex.Fat Hamster assumes this would be a good case for feminist separatism.This might deal with her oppression as a woman but I notice that that is the oppression that u pick on and it is only one part of her identity.My argument is that any form of politics that argues that one oppression is the most important is limited.That was my argument with the Trots on the Socialist Party thread.They as orthodox Marxists would say Class is the most important factor.Race and Gender politics come second.In real life people often have divided loyalties which I dont think a separatist politics whether of the Pan African or Feminist sort can deal with.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what u mean by separatism.I was looking at Segals book for a definition.During the late 70s some American Feminists(Adrienne Rich)argued for a political Lesbian womens centred culture and identity as opposed to what they saw destructive violent male culture.They also criticised aspects of gay culture which they saw as imitating male sexuality such as Butch/Femme relationships.They criticised Feminists who wanted a more complex analysis of sexuality and oppression.I would argue that is it the latter Feminists whose work has more lasting.
As for necessity Vangaurd as an extreme fringe that is relative.A middle Englander would regard me,for example,as a Left wing extremist(of an armchair sort).A Trot would say I am an backsliding reformist.
fat hamster
26-08-2002, 21:37
Originally posted by Gramsci
... the point I was making was that for many people oppression or identity is complex.
I believe I made the same point earlier in the thread: "The liberation movement isn't one smooth process, unfolding neatly over time ... A separatist space is often the best space in which to confront the complexities of oppression."
Fat Hamster assumes this would be a good case for feminist separatism.This might deal with her oppression as a woman but I notice that that is the oppression that u pick on and it is only one part of her identity.
Well you've got to start somewhere!
My argument is that any form of politics that argues that one oppression is the most important is limited.
I agree, in terms of forming any kind of overview of the whole mess.
That was my argument with the Trots on the Socialist Party thread.They as orthodox Marxists would say Class is the most important factor.Race and Gender politics come second.
All oppression hurts, and arguing over whose pain hurts most is a lamentable waste of time and energy.
In real life people often have divided loyalties which I dont think a separatist politics whether of the Pan African or Feminist sort can deal with.
Quite. However, at an individual level, one can only deal with so much at a time. I guess one starts (a) with the bits that hurt most and/or (b) where the resources for healing are most readily available.
Neither Pan Africanism nor feminism is going to provide your friend with all the answers. (I have nowhere suggested that any form of separatism is a desirable end-point to the process of political change - if I believed that, would I be posting here?!).
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what u mean by separatism.
I have been deliberately vague. I don't think it matters. With all due respect to the academic study of separatist feminism, I'd as soon debate the number of angels that can dance upon the head of a pin.
What matters IMO is that oppressed people have the right to meet, organise and if they wish live separately, and that that right is respected, even cherished, by the rest of us. Even if we do find the resulting situation uncomfortable or threatening.
Sometimes the most supportive thing an oppressor can do is shut up and listen!
As for necessity Vangaurd as an extreme fringe that is relative.A middle Englander would regard me,for example,as a Left wing extremist(of an armchair sort).A Trot would say I am an backsliding reformist.
LOL! Isn't diversity wonderful? :)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fat hamster
"I have been deliberately vague. I don't think it matters. With all due respect to the academic study of separatist feminism, I'd as soon debate the number of angels that can dance upon the head of a pin."
Actually it does matter.A dislike of intellectuals/academics is a part of English culture unfortunately.The French have a completely different attitude.Being continually vague about ones definitions makes it very different to argue or dissagree.It can lead as I think you have done into supporting anything as it is part of some struggle against oppression.I do not believe this is a tenable position to take.As far as the politics of Race and Feminism/Gender go their are theoretical debates that for anyone interested in these issues are important to have some knowledge about.Relating this to ones own personal experience is important.I do believe some academics make their work impenetrable and difficult to understand but not all of it is like that.
The best theoretical/academic work can lead one out of an everyday commonsence to seeing things from a new angle.Marxs work for example(whilst being difficult)challenged the idea that market Capitalism was somehow natural with everyone in it being equal.As for Feminisn the book I mentioned by Lyn Segal is by someone who is an academic and at times an activist.Theoretical work is a response to society and the politics of the day.The fact that it gets ignored/dismissed is a reflection of this countrys political culture.
Posted by Fat Hamster
"Sometimes the most supportive thing an oppressor can do is shut up and listen!"
I really dont find comments like this very helpful.Which oppressor is being talked about here?In one situation a person might be an oppressor in another oppressed.A woman who is a manager at work might oppress the working class in that context.In another context she might be oppressed as a woman.It is more important to engage with these issues than to stay quiet even if that means opinions are voiced which many (including me ) might not like.
fat hamster
05-09-2002, 21:49
Originally posted by Gramsci Actually it does matter.
Why? And, to whom?
Being continually vague about ones definitions ... can lead as I think you have done into supporting anything as it is part of some struggle against oppression.
Not anything. For example I would not condone violence against people, except possibly in immediate self-defence / defence of children.
As far as the politics of Race and Feminism/Gender go their are theoretical debates that for anyone interested in these issues are important to have some knowledge about.
"Anyone interested in these issues." Gramsci, methinks you write as an observer, not a participant. (Cue: Chumbawumba's "Pass It Along" :cool: )
IMO people suffering from oppression (whether economic or psychological, i.e. external or internalised) have more urgent things to do than learning about theoretical debates.
The value of separatist space, whatever its political pedigree, is that it provides safety for healing and empowerment.
Relating this to ones own personal experience is important.
The personal is political ... yes, yes, yes!
I do believe some academics make their work impenetrable and difficult to understand but not all of it is like that ... The best theoretical/academic work can lead one out of an everyday commonsence to seeing things from a new angle.
Sure I'm not knocking academics or their work per se. I'm quite an intellectual myself. :)
Theoretical work is a response to society and the politics of the day.The fact that it gets ignored/dismissed is a reflection of this countrys political culture.
And a reflection of the theoretical work's irrelevance to those engaged in the 'hands on' struggle for self-determination.
[B]Posted by Fat Hamster
"Sometimes the most supportive thing an oppressor can do is shut up and listen!"
I really dont find comments like this very helpful.
I can imagine ... :D
Which oppressor is being talked about here?
Whichever one is denying the oppressed person's experience at the time!!!
In one situation a person might be an oppressor in another oppressed.A woman who is a manager at work might oppress the working class in that context.In another context she might be oppressed as a woman.
Yes ...
Except that, as I see it, she wouldn't be oppressing "the working class", she'd be oppressing some working class individuals. And of course some of them might also be black, or gay, or fat, or disabled. And, so might she ... as you said yourself, "for many people oppression or identity is complex".
My point is that every power relationship is unique, but the remedy is similar - for healing to happen in that relationship, the oppressor needs to give up their power.
She or he needs to learn how her or his behaviour is hurting that other human being, and understand how she or he can begin to change that behaviour for the better.
I'll say it again: the oppressor needs to shut up and listen.
It is more important to engage with these issues than to stay quiet even if that means opinions are voiced which many (including me ) might not like.
No. Listen up, Gramsci.
It is even more important that everyone is heard.
So shush, now, my dear.
For it is the constant babble of input from straight white able-bodied male people which means that realistically, for the forseeable future, oppressed people will continue to benefit from times spent organising separately. ;)
John Wisehammer
06-09-2002, 10:49
Originally posted by Gramsci
Reply to Wisehammer.
I actually dont think my race or sexual preferances should have to be stated before I express opinions on these matters.If I said I was a Black gay women whould this mean u would give my opinions more credibility?Just because I am none of the above does not mean what I am saying is incorrect.
Sorry, old chap/ess, I must have missed all this. Like I said, my only reason for asking was vague curiousity.
One one hand, not having first hand experience can, on a very basic level, make all your information second-hand. OTOH, if no-one can expect to go unchallenged because they're talking bollocks just because they're from a power minority. Telling people whose opinion you don't like to "shush" is just fucking childish and totally counterproductive. "Not listening to experience" sometimes turns out to be code for "you disagree and I'm throwing my toys out of the pram by making ad hominem attacks" - just see the old disability thread somewhere around this place. It's especially dopey in the context of a bulletin board when if you're not interested in what someone's saying you can just skip to the next post.
Yes on some issues my information is second hand.I would suggest that one basic part of being human is the ability to see things from different perspectives.Without that ability humans could not function as social beings.In that sense we are all observers at some point.I see nothing wrong with this.
As I regard myself in a minor way to be politically engaged at times I find it annoying to be told that Theory is for "observers".It is to easy to argue on the basis of Ones experience and tell other people to "shush".On issues to do with Class I have a lot of "experience" I could use I however dont like arguing in this way.There are plenty of people who are middle class(Tony Benn I believe gave up a peerage)who are socialists on the basis of their "observations" on how Capitalism works.One can oppose something even if it benefits oneself in everyday life.People I believe do not necessarilly follow a Hobbesian self interest.That is the difference between us and the rest of the animal kingdom.
Where does the "constant babble of white able bodied males" come from?I dont remember saying if I was able bodied if it matters.Also this site is open to anyone to post on so I think this comment is not applicable in this forum.One of the better aspects of the WWW is it is freer in this sense.That must be qualified by the fact that most people in the world do not have access to the WWW.
fat hamster
12-09-2002, 20:35
<yawns>
In that case I think that I have said all I want to say on this thread.I have tried to argue on a civilized basis something that you are obviously not capable of doing.
RubyToogood
15-09-2002, 16:57
I'm with hammy...
*Makes a cup of tea for Ruby and FH whilst sharing some cake.*
fat hamster
15-09-2002, 20:47
<chomping and slurping noises>
Yum yum! Tea and cake! Thanks HHJW and Ruby! http://www.longdog.org.uk/smilies2/knuddle.gif
Right, moving the subject matter back to the original post, here is a quote from Dr Frances Cress Welsing who wrote 'The Isis papers'
Quote
'White supremacy domination and oppression of all non-white people is essential for global white genetic survival. The prevention of white genetic annihilation is pursued through all means, including chemical and biological warfare. Today, the white genetic survival imperative, instead of using gas in chambers, is using chemicals on the street -- crack, crank (?), cocaine, ecstasy, PCP, heroin and methadone (all "designer chemicals"). Ultimately, these chemicals are produced by whites and made available to urban blacks, particularly black males - upon whom the future of black people is dependent. The core dynamic of white genetic survival eventually leads whites to a major act of genocide (destruction of the genes of non-white people), or toward genocidal imperatives. Such a genocide occurred in Nazi Germany wherein the Semite and gypsy populations were classified as non white and therefore were destroyed.'
Now is this a load of bollocks, is it racist or just overly simplistic, I haven't read the book she has written and would be interested in knowing if anyone has.
If what she says is true and we can make the distinction that not all 'white' people hold this view (subconsciously or otherwise) how is the problem to be tackled.
I would agree that drugs do tend to disproportionately end up in black communities but would see this as a manifestation of economic and educational problems.
RubyToogood
15-09-2002, 21:51
This is a bit random at this point in the debate, but anyway...
It occurred to me that things like this rally (the Trident one, not the reparations one), might have a tendency to play into the hands of those who stereotype black people as criminals by suggesting that the "black community" as a whole is responsible for (or in any position to control) the crack/guns situation.
:confused:
HHJW - sounds like bollocks to me. If drugs were supposed to be a scourge on urban black people, then why are there so many junkies in (pretty much all-white) rural Scotland? Why are there so many junkies in (pretty much all-white) Russia? etc etc.
All those drugs aren't all produced by white people and sold to black people. Heroin is made in SE Asia and Central/South Asia and sold into Europe by Iranians, Turks and Tajiks (principally). Cocaine is (often) grown by aboriginal South Americans, processed by Hispanics and imported into the US by everyone (inc Mexicans, blacks, whites). Whoever write this is either clueless or means that white people do it in the sense that white people permit it to happen by creating the legal and social climate that permits it to happen.
I also notice that she seems to treat black urban males in the US (or certainly the West) as the future of black people. Erm, what about all those black people in Africa? (BTW, does anyone know the relative sizes of the black populations in Europe & Nth Am compared to Africa and Sth Am?)
As far as your last para grows, instinctively I would agree with it (because not to would require believing either that black people are socially/genetically more inclined to drug abuse or that there has been some sort of deliberately targetted promotion of drugs to black people over whites, both of which to my mind sound like bollocks). Having said that, I'd be interested in seeing whether drug use among black British people actually was substantially higher than among white British people - there are plenty of tiny little villages all over the place that are filled with white junkie kids - but I just don't know the figures for that.
vBulletin® v3.6.10, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.