and that anything from anywhere else tends to have to be named with its own category to be relevant.
I detest that intra-POC racism gets dismissed as “not racism” (if it ever gets discussed at all) because it doesn’t involve a White person, that when people invoke “racism = power + privilege”…
While I am not unsympathetic to what I hear as a “three pillars of white supremacist” argument—the way this is presented is problematic because “black americans” means everybody from the queer trans puerto rican woman sex worker to Jesse Jackson. And the logical conclusion of “inclusivity” critiques is that space should be made for those who are not “included”—well in a huge community where social heirarchies are in order (i.e. sexism, heteropatriarchy, etc)—who, exactly, is going to be shoved out of the way so that some group with the power to demand inclusivity can have room?
The problem with inclusivity is that it doesn’t take into mind *goals*. Inclusivity in and of itself becomes the goal—and it becomes the goal for people who desperatly need *structural changes*. So white feminists get angry because “you were included!”—but were women of color *included in the formation of what we expect the goals of the movement to be*?
So—I want to dismantle “nation/states” as a ruling authority of how “resource distribution” happens. White feminists, however, who benefit from the method of “resource distribution” that the US lives with say they want inclusion, but when I say I don’t think equality can happen without dismantling white supremacity heteropatriarchy—they say—we want to get more feminists elected! We need to do urgent urgent actions because they’re trying to stop abortions! a celebrity said slut! etc.
i say—it took right wing forces thirty years to put roe v wade where it is today—what would have happened if *we* had spent the last thirty years building a new model of health justice such that nobody *needs* a supreme court to give a few privileged people who are considered “citizens” the very few rights allowed under an unequal distribution system?
To return to the Slut walk—the whole thing with the police—the *majority* of people in the Northern Hemisphere that are citizens, white, cis, and able bodied upper class think of the police as a first response to crisis. the people *in the margins*—the sex workers, trans women, immigrant women, disabled, drug using, women of color, poor women—we *know* better. That 1. the police won’t respond if they *are* called and 2. the person from the marginalized community will be arrested (or possibly killed) if the police are called. Nobody is saying every. single. undocumented. chicana. will be arrested if she calls the police when her husband kicks her ass. They are saying—enough undocumented chicanas “know somebody” or have had their own experiences such that calling the police only happens in truly desperate situations.
THis suggests that response to organizing around sexist police violence is not to make room for people who *aren’t* afraid to call the police to tell their stories—but rather instead, that fairly privileged people who didn’t have problems with the police before but then realized, wait a minute, maybe we *do*—should be reaching out to *other* people who have problems with the police and seeing in which ways they can support and organize with existing projects—*INSTEAD OF* assuming they are the first ones evar, lets throw together this super quick thing URGENTLY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE, and in the process do whatever you can to make alliances with white hetero cis rich men and deny white supremacy exists. AND TO BE CLEAR, I AM SPEAKING ONLY OF ORGANIZING IN THE US WHICH HAS FOLLOWED ALL THE FAMILIAR PATTERNS OF TRADITIONAL ORGANIZING IN THE US FEMINIST WORLD DURING THE SLUT WALK SITUATION.
And I think it would also be great to recognize that people like the Shark Femmes, Indigenous/aboriginal women in Canada, and many others have organized marches that *have* taken into consideration and done the work of alliance building, working with marginalized communities, etc. (just like online Latinas have done some twitter puta-ing, etc) And there is a *reason* that nobody has ever heard of any of it—and it’s NOT because black people are taking up too much space, but because white supremacist heteropatriarchal media is *intrigued* by white women being sluts in boston—and is repulsed by queer sharks being femme in San Fran.
Word to what Ms. RadicallyHottOff said.
Also? I don’t have eloquence right now, but this smacks me as yet another example of someone appropriating Blackness as a tool for whatever without ACTUALLY ENGAGING WITH BLACK PEOPLE AND OUR WORDS. Cuz we don’t like this shit either! We don’t like all of our ethnicities being conflated into one big monolith. We don’t like being used as a synonym for “diversity.” We HATE how those things that we’ve worked our asses off to create and produce and build community around get conflated with “People of Color” or “Women of Color” Our shit is FOREVER getting appropriated and de-Blacked by other people of color who show no solidarity with actual Black people. I don’t know if this is coming out right, but I just want to know WHY you thought it was okay to take up Blackness as your hammer against being silenced WITHOUT CITING OR QUOTING OUR WORDS on the matter? There’s a shit ton that BLACK PEOPLE have written on our hypervisibility and how it HURTS US as well as you!
I don’t know any persons of color who deny the existence of intra-POC racism. In fact, I would argue that this rant right here, by a person of color who is tired of hearing about Black experience, is a good example.
zuky: “You don’t know” doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I’ve had my experiences brushed off because it was between Bangladeshis and other Malaysians, and there was a direct Tumblr Q&A by a pretty well-liked POC where she was asked whether intra-POC racism counted as racism and she said “no it’s not”. (I commented on her Disqus refuting it, but haven’t had a reply). Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Erasure right there.
I’m uncomfortable with how Liquour&Spice’s response seems to imply that my post would only be valid if I also quoted Black POC in there, which seems to me to be part of the problem (though I have noted the Black/African debate on here with some intrigue), and I’m also uncomfortable with how radicallyhotoff’s post was all USA this that the other, starting off with white supremacy. It’s not just about SlutWalk or US radical politics, that’s the point - it’s that how things work within different countries get ignored altogether, especially when white people aren’t actually involved in the rabble.
A lot of this is trying to articulate the absence of something, and also what I see is a lot of “hey don’t assume you speak for me”. It’s like trying to say something but none of the words work for you. To the blog I’m reblogging this from (weexist-weresist): How much of what you post involves racial dynamics outside the US?