đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș crimethinc-crimethinc-convergence-controversy.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:24:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: CrimethInc. Convergence Controversy Author: CrimethInc. Date: August 2009 Language: en Topics: CrimethInc., convergences, drama, Anarchist People of Color Source: https://crimethinc.com/2009/08/03/crimethinc-convergence-controversy and https://crimethinc.com/2009/08/08/more-convergence-accounts
This is a brief statement followed by personal accounts detailing the
events of a controversial disruption that happened at the end of the
CrimethInc. Convergence in Pittsburgh this July. These texts have been
written by some anarchist people of color who participated in the
convergence and were present the night of the disruption. There has been
some discussion about it on the internet, but we hope to offer people
more context from our perspectives about that night. Still, mostly
questions remain about how to proceed. Hopefully at least, these
accounts will provoke honest, open, humble conversations about all of
the issues raised, so that we can figure out how to move forward as
radical communities in struggle.
There is so much ground to cover to convey what happened throughout the
weeklong convergence. Check back soon for further reportbacks about the
rest of the convergence.
What seemed like an awesome, performative disruptionâa reclamation of
space, an expression of anger, an opening up of dialogueâshifted quickly
into something else entirely. At the end of a night of Cabaret at the
CrimethInc. Convergence in late July, about half a dozen
anarchist/autonomist people of colorâsome who had participated in the
convergence all week and some who came into town just for this
âactionââstormed into a hall full of people, reading a statement about
gentrification and white supremacy, while screaming slogans.
People watched in silence, uncertain of how to respond to such intense
aggression from this small group of friends. With no provocation, the
disrupters** started grabbing peopleâs backpacks and sleeping bags and
throwing them out into the hallway, under a rallying cry of, âGet the
fuck out of here! Get the fuck out of Pittsburgh! Weâre not fucking
kidding!â They cleared peopleâs bags from the shelves, from off the
ground; they grabbed lamps, chairs, anything they could get their hands
on. Tossing everything out of the room, peopleâs belongings were dumped
into jumbled piles everywhere. The disrupters screamed that white people
were gentrifying the neighborhood the Convergence was inâneighborhoods
everywhereâand that they wouldnât stop what they were doing until all of
the white people from the convergence were out of the building, out of
Pittsburgh. It was the middle of the night, and almost everyone had been
staying in that building. With nowhere to go, many people started to
leave.
The disrupters became increasingly aggressive with the people in the
room. They got up in peopleâs faces, and yelled at them to leave, âGo
back to Europe! Iâm sick of looking at your white fucking face!â
Provoked into fear and panic, many people left the room, tears streaming
down their faces. Others responded with a variety of racist comments
demonstrating just how far a lot of people have to go in terms of
understanding white supremacy and privilege. The disrupters used thinly
veiled intimidation and threats, like screaming, âGet the fuck out of
here! I am not a pacifist!â while pulling bags out of peopleâs hands;
they muscled past the people who tried to block the flow of backpacks
and purses out into the hallway, thrusting the belongings into peopleâs
heads, backs, and other parts of their bodies.
In an attempt to deescalate the situation, people eventually started
encouraging everyone to leave. Convergence attendees poured out onto the
sidewalks, and started organizing alternate housing and carpools. Many
peopleâs belongings were still lost and strewn all over the convergence
space, but with the police arriving to investigate the scene, everyone
had to go somewhere. By nearly 2 am, all of the people who did not
identify as people of colorâand all those too traumatized by the
aggression of the disruptersâwere out of the upstairs, yet the
disrupters still refused to leave. Some people of color from the
convergence called a caucus with the disrupters, but after an
unproductive attempt at dialogue, finally, the disrupters left.
Apparently, a few friends of the disrupters had known about the planned
disruption beforehand, but afterwards, everyone apologetically explained
that they had expected the disruption to have a radically different
character. Some people mentioned the feminist disruption of an anarchist
gathering in the UK where women hijacked a meeting to screen a movie
about feminism when describing what they had imagined. We certainly hope
people would have intervened if they had foreseen the aggression and
violence the disrupters chose to employ.
âfrom people of color who attended the convergence and oppose the
disruption
the only way they referenced themselves was as people from APOC
(anarchist people of color). However, they were certainly not acting on
behalf of all APOCers. And like with any decentralized group structure,
when a few people do fucked up things under a banner that many people
feel affinity with, those people risk delegitimizing the whole movement
rather than bearing the responsibility for their own actions. To be
clear, this disruption was NOT an APOC action.
It seemed really complicated for many people of color who were not a
part of the disruption to sort out their feelings about it that night
because it was all too easy to relate to the legitimate anger and
distress that seemed to motivate the disrupters. I talked with many
other people of color that night about our own feelings of isolation,
the pain of our own invisibility organizing in anarchist spaces
dominated by people with more privilege. We talked about the intensity
of the white supremacy we have faced in radical circles, and the serious
need to address it. But we also talked about the ways the kind of
coercive actions taken by the disrupters could obscures those realities,
making it harder to actually work through this stuff with our potential
allies
For me that night, though, it was simple to sort out what side I was on.
Watching the disrupters tear apart peopleâs belongings, it was clear I
had to intervene. Watching male-bodied disrupters scream into the faces
of women with tears streaming down their cheeks, I had no choice but to
put my body in between them. Really, watching the disrupters of any
gender bring their rage upon my white friends of any gender, it was
impossible not to get involved.
I am a small, woman of color. I have been assaultedâphysically,
sexually, emotionally. My whole life. The hatred in the voices of the
disrupters as they screamed the absurd, âGo back to Europe,â was simply
too reminiscent of the xenophobic slurs Iâve heard since childhood. The
way they manipulated and controlled individuals and groups, screaming
threats and rampaging through the room, felt just like life with my
abusive ex-housemate. I will never watch that kind of violence and do
nothing. Even if nothing that I did that night was useful, it was
important to me that the disrupters could feel my opposition; it was
important to me to resist.
Because people wanted to take seriously the concerns that the disrupters
brought up, it also seemed really complicated for white people to figure
out how to engage with them. Eventually, following the lead of people of
color, some white folks started to passively resist the disrupters by
blocking the doorways and removing stolen bags from the disruptersâ
hands, but because the disrupters were anarchists, comrades, friends, no
one wanted it to be a needless confrontation.
But the disrupters made it clear to me that they were there for a
confrontation. âThis is war,â they told me. âPeople get hurt in
revolution.â âWe are not afraid, and we are not pacifists!â For some
reason, though, the disrupters had decided that their conflict was only
with the white people at the Convergence. They consistently screamed at
every white person to leave, while leaving the people of color alone,
and so the people of color left in the space were uniquely positioned to
try to deal with the mess. The disrupters tried to argue that it wasnât
about usâit wasnât about the people of color left in the space. But for
me, if you fuck with people I love, even if you never do anything to me,
than, yes, your fight is also with me.
I spent much of that night trying to get the disrupters to leave. I
tried to talk to them. I tried to stop them from destroying peopleâs
personal belongings. I put my body in between them and other
peopleâtried to stop the yelling and screaming, faces inches away from
each other. I tried to stop the fight. I tried to physically remove
individual disrupters from that space. I tried desperately to stop the
fight. That night I felt so alone. So isolated. It was clear to me that
I needed to resist the abuse that was happening. But I didnât want to be
fighting these people that were trying to say everything I also needed
to say. I should have been standing along side the disrupters, we should
have been speaking our fury together, but they made that impossible. The
disrupters made no space for dialogue. They made no space for meâor
other people of color who needed room for their rage. They told us all
that we could talk later. When everything was over. But even now,
everything is far from over.
We tried to reason with the disrupters, to get them just to leave. I
asked them how they felt about how shitty they made people feel, and
they quickly defended that they âgave people warningâ to leave. (That
warning was them entering the room yelling and throwing peopleâs bags
out.) Another disrupter responded, âDonât you support queers bashing
back?â And I told them, Iâm all for queer peopleâanyone,
reallyâattacking their attackers, but that I didnât equate that with
indiscriminately attacking a room full of strangers. I asked them how
they felt about all of the women, queer people, trans people, and
otherwise marginalized people they were pushing out onto the street in
the middle of the night. The disrupters responded that theyâd be safe
wherever they had to go because of their white faces. Back and forth, we
tried to get the disrupters to respond genuinely, but they gave up only
rhetoric and nonsense.
After literally hours of this, after every bag was cleared out of the
room, after almost every person was gone and the disrupters were just
standing inside of one of the doorways, refusing to leave, I totally
broke. With nothing left to do, I told them all to get out. I told them
it was over, it was time to go. They just looked at me. I had been
saying this all night, but this time I needed it to be real, I needed it
to be done. I was done. I went behind the door that two of them were
leaning against to hold open and started pushing with all my strength to
close it. It closed halfway, and then the struggle really began. I donât
remember everything that happened. The disrupters were screaming at me.
I was screaming at them. Tears were screaming down my face; every muscle
in my body cried out. At some point other people of color started
helping me push on the door. Everything hurt. Everything was pain.
Everything was broken.
That night, you broke me.
I am crying still as I write this one week later. All of the complicated
pain and heartbreak wonât let go. I want to be talking about white
supremacy in our movements. I donât want to be talking about you. I
donât want to be watching us self-destruct, taking sides, falling apart.
I want to be talking about the ways our privilege and internalized
oppression make us hurt each other. I guess thatâs what this is, but it
all feels so needless, so thoughtless. I donât want to deal with your
shit just because you didnât think through your actions, because you
thought that everyone would just come back in after you left, that all
of the panic attacks and pain could just be erased, that when peopleâs
hearts stopped racing they wouldnât feel the lingering fear.
Somehow, there was a moment of stillness when everyone else was gone,
and some people of color called for a conversation with all of us, the
disrupters and all of the other people of color that were left. We
closed the doors to that upstairs room, and everything was quiet for a
moment. Folks of color started trying to ask the disrupters about why
they did what they did, trying to reason with them. It felt pointless to
me. The disrupters were spouting the same rhetoric and absurd defenses
they had been saying all night. They expressed feeling good about
displacing people for the night because they wanted people to get a
taste of how gentrification displaces people permanently. When I asked
how they felt about being a force of domination, just like
gentrification, they responded only that gentrification is a greater
force of domination than they were that night. Iâm glad at least that
the disrupters were less of a force of domination than gentrification,
but that sets the bar pretty low for how we interact with one another.
Even oppressed groups of people can dominate people with more societal
privilege than they have.
People also brought up how dangerous and irresponsible it was for the
disrupters to do something that could bring so much extra police
attention to this political event. With the high level of surveillance
of the convergence, the police certainly could have taken advantage of
this opportunity to raid the space or otherwise intervene. Perhaps that
didnât happen only because with some kind of intelligence on the inside,
it was clear that the disrupters were doing a better job of creating
division, panic, and controversy than the police or Feds could have.
Someone later said to me that if the police had raided the space, it
probably would have brought people together against the police, but this
kind of drama will ensure schisms far wider-reaching and longer-running
than anything the police can do to us.
In this conversation with the disrupters, we also tried to talk more
specifically about why they did what they did. From this vantage point,
I honestly think that the rhetoric about gentrification was somewhat of
a ruse for the aggression. None of the disrupters were from Pittsburgh.
Three of them had arrived that day and not spent any time in that
neighborhood. They claimed that the neighborhood didnât want the
convergence there, but in our conversation, they couldnât offer a single
story about talking to a neighbor with complaints. Whereas I had dozens
of interactions with people in that neighborhood who were ambivalent to
excited about the convergence being thereâand I know many others did,
too. I met neighbors who were curious about what we were doing,
neighbors who offered us food, neighbors who helped out with copwatch,
and neighbors who came to the convergence space to hang out.
When further pressed for information about why they were taking that
action, the disrupters said that they came there only because they were
asked to do this by âPittsburgh APOC.â According to one APOCista in
Pittsburgh, there isnât an active APOC group there, but it seems like a
couple of individual APOC folks likely asked the group to come. When
asked again to try to defend why they were acting they way they were,
the disrupters explicitly said that anyone could hold âPittsburgh APOCâ
accountable for their actions. The disrupters said also that they were
acting with the full support of Chicago and Philly APOC, as well as
people in Milwaukee.
I want to make it abundantly clear that supporting this âactionâ is not
just supporting a militant action taken by people of color; it is
supporting abuse. Using intimidation, threats, controlling peopleâs
belongings and their movements is violence. The violence people of color
feel in their daily lives and in anarchist circles is real and
legitimate, but that in no way justifies this indiscriminant use of
violence among friends and potential allies. Itâs like a woman, who
distraught at the expression of patriarchy in her every day life, forces
herself on her lover. It is fucking abuse, and we shouldnât ignore it
just because itâs complicated.
As for what happens next, Iâm not sure. The way the disrupters acted is
a totally unacceptable way to treat comrades or potential comrades, and
the only model I have for sorting out how to move forward through this
is some kind of perpetrator accountability processâalthough, that kind
of accountability can only happen within communities of friends. That
night, the disrupters said they wouldnât call any of the white
anarchists there comrades, and maybe that is something they want to
stick by. For now, I know that I donât want to organize with or interact
with those disrupters until some kind of serious accountability process
can take place.
That night was intensely triggering for many people. For me. For hours,
I was under this consistent, medium level attack. I came out of that
night with cuts and bruises, torn clothing and trauma that one week
later, still wonât relinquish my body back to me. I donât get to be
neutral or pretend it didnât happen. I hope we all take this seriously.
âmonica
I am puertorican. I too am fed up with the subtly alienating sub-culture
of CrimethInc. and many other radical spaces with their ignored
hierarchies and cold, individualist behaviors. If it were entirely up to
me and if I had no one to care about in the convergence, I wouldâve
probably grabbed bags just the same and screamed just as loud. But
liberation is not that simple, and thank goodness it isnât, or else a
flashy vanguard mightâve been all it took for the oppressed all along.
And weâre definitely not into that vanguard bull after seeing the harm
itâs done (âŠright?).
Watching the disruption unfold and the split widen in the main room was
like watching my own family fight with each other. I donât know which
side I should take or if there are sides to take, and that made me feel
all the more powerless. Youâd think that watching fellow APOC act in
autonomy and against white supremacy would make me feel emboldened to
take further action⊠but I felt I couldnât do anything else but to sit
there frozen and try to take all the surfaced conflicts in by force. I
donât know if itâs just a trigger of mine to freeze up in these
situations, or if I was just plain afraid to join anyone. Some peopleâs
faces looked like that of white tourists back in PR who just got their
luxurious vacation ruined. Some of the disruptors were completely
ignoring the triggers the violent behaviors in the space set off for
many with an abused past.
At a point where I was feeling the crack too much, I pleaded to speak to
a disruptor face-to-face. The reasoning for the action was much of what
I expected: fed up APOC who want to teach a lesson the loud way. As I
listened on, it started to sound like some individual disruptors werenât
all that sure about their action after all. While on the sidewalk a
squad car raced by with sirens blasting and sped off. I thought to
myself that the infiltrators must be laughing their asses off about this
back at the station. I spoke then with a Latino friend that came back on
the bike who was glad that finally people were taking this convergence
seriously. Yea, true, it did wipe out a lot of the rose tint, but it
could also create a whole new blindfold.
After the conflict settled down, the disruptors were outside and I
confronted the loudest of them (at least) who explained they were acting
as individuals (so much for their talk about white people oppressing the
nearby neighborhood, apparently they werenât speaking on their behalf)
and talked about some history of these POC groups and mentioned a very
troubling term: âanarcho-nationalistâ. The fact that âanarchoâ and
anything that means could ever be related to ânationalistâ is confusing
enough, but I find the simple upholding of ânationalistâ to be fucked
up. Puerto Ricoâs nationalist groups, though greatly mythologized, have
their own history of very, very fucked up shit in the name of national
power for the âpuertoricanâ so many people still revere. From Albizu
Camposâs correspondence with Nazis to constant and still going talks of
âcleansingâ the puertorican culture (whatever our culture is, anyways,
esos son otros veinte pesos), nationalist goals didnât exactly conjure
the liberated, autonomous communities we all strive for.
I talked with people of all sorts of contrasting experiences and
conversations during the disruption but thereâs a very unique one that I
wish to share. Shortly after finally calming down and walking without
trembling, a male-bodied person who I had only met briefly before
approached me. They asked for advice. They were part of the organizing
for the disruption but completely changed their mind at a moment they
felt no identity. The person was of mixed-race. They didnât identify as
a person of color though because of their experiences of having just as
much privilege as any white person but in other ways, like class and
gender. And their skin was light, and complexion could be judged as
white as well. Did that mean they were gentrifying and oppressing just
as much as white people? Neither of us knew an easy answer. But to me,
it does show that gentrification isnât as simple as just race, as I
myself have many privileges that could be easily ignored were I to take
a quasi-nationalist stance based on race (I am male-bodied,
middle-class, and my Americanized upbringing in the colony, including
knowing the language well, has made it easier to be âacceptedâ in North
American âcultureâ). And also, we need to be constantly evaluating what
it means to be a âperson of colorâ and what role do both, our apparent
and our identity race/races play as oppressor or as the oppressed.
On my ride back from the convergence, I thought to myself of how it
couldâve ended if there were no disruption. Maybe internalized white
supremacy wouldâve gone ignored. Maybe, after all, we couldâve finished
the conversations in something productive and concrete. Weâll never know
and itâs actually unproductive to think of whether or not it was
necessary. It made cracks and it create some bonds while shattering
others. It got a ball rolling or at least made the ball bigger on
confronting our own spacesâ racism. It hurt some people and caused some
damage that a mere âsorryâ wonât help. It brought out some fucked up
statements (some random person claimed âyou canât kick me out, this is
MY spaceââŠ). If anything, letâs not ignore what discussions need to
happen face-to-face, whatever side we were on. No causing a mess within
own friends and then leaving the city like nothing happened (isnât that
what we blame so many corporations and cops so much for?). I want to
speak with all yâall and make honest connections. Anarchist people of
color are all I have, because we reflect the complexities I need to
confront so badly and need help with, in a world that enforces a single
ânormalityâ. And I sure as hell donât just wanna impose some other kind
of simple and separatist ânormalityâ.
Entre amor y lucha,
Luis hacktiffler[at]riseup.net
There is a lot to be said as far as I am concerned around the disruption
that happened during the CrimethInc. Convergence, but maybe this is not
the forum in which to say it all. This is a short (relative to
everything I want to say) account of my experience around the
disruption.
When the disruption started, I didnât really know how to respond. In its
beginning it seemed that the disruption was a performative protest
against issues involving gentrification around the convergence, a more
rebellious show that is a part of the cabaret, something that was done
more to make a point than anything else. Very soon it became clear to me
that the disruption was aimed towards something else entirely.
In the days before the disruption I was emotionally exhausted by several
mediation processes I was involved in, and specifically by work around
gentrification. When the disruption started I had no emotional capacity
to take in any of what was going on. I stood there, watching friends try
to stop the disruption, taking bags and belongings out of the
disruptersâ hands, without the ability to react or to get involved.
Someone approached me and asked me to get involved, to do something, but
I couldnât. If I am really honest, even though I was protected by my
identity as a person of color, I did not feel safe. I had a personal
relationship with some of the disrupters, but not with the two most
aggressive ones. I actually felt that an intervention from my side might
end with a punch to my face.
A white friend of mine was sitting in the corner crying, and I went to
them and hugged them, trying to give them support. Their tears and
sadness brought my emotions to the surface. I felt overwhelmed by the
sadness that came with the recognition that apparently we cannot all
just get along. Even though we are a part of a movement, it seems like
some of us feel like aggression is the only way to get results from our
comrades, and there is something so heartbreaking about that.
While me and a friend were comforting another friend, one of the
disrupters came to us and asked if we were going to leave. The other
comforter replied rather cynically, âWell, I am Colombian, is it ok for
me to stay?â The disrupter, not noticing the tone in which the words
were said, replied that we could stay. When I think about the disruption
I keep going back to that moment. There is something so ironic in the
disrupter approaching a group of mostly people of color with a request
to leave. When you are at war, maybe there is no space for
distinctionsâand so people of color turn into white as you assume
everyone around you is the enemy. And even if we werenât people of
color, it seems so heartless to approach people in tears you caused in
order to promote your interests. At that moment the disrupters made it
clear, some vague political idea was more important than us, the people
who sat with them in gentrification workshops all week.
A few moments later one of my white friends approached me and offered me
a hug. I donât remember exactly what they said to me, but there was
something in their words that felt liberating. Through the whole
disruption I felt so dehumanized, as if I was erased, completely
unpresent and unrecognized. The contradiction that such a friendly
moment offered helped me suddenly notice the dehumanization I felt for
so long. This was a bitter-sweet experience.
Soon after I went downstairs. There I was again greeted by many
concerned friends offering hugs and asking what I needed. I left the
space a little later, I felt drained and worried and wanted to be in a
space that felt safe.
The day after I felt very concerned about going back to the space. I was
worried that the conversion about yesterdayâs events will focus mostly
on the fucked up way in which the disruption took place, and not enough
on the feelings that motivated it. To me the disruption was mostly a
wake up call, and I wanted others to take it as such. Happily, I think
that most of the particles of conversations that have reached my ears
were focused on the breach of trust people of color felt towards their
white allies.
After the really really free market we all met and went through an
accountability process around some racist reactions some white people
had towards the disruption. The process caused me to feel a lot of
anxiety. In the moments before it I took many emotional supporting
tinctures, and drank tea. I was scared of how I would feel about the
things that would be said, and was worried I would not have the capacity
to contain myself. The beginning of the process was very frustrating for
me. There was a lot of discussion around how the process should go, what
people can or cannot say, etc. To me, a lot of the discussion seemed
like an attempt to evade the actual accountability that needed to be
taken. My feelings about the conversation shifted completely when we
actually started going through the list of racist reactions to the
disruption. I was surprised by the fact that people actually admitted
when they did not know why something was wrong or offensive. Things were
not just brushed under the carpet, but each act was examined by the
whole community and explained. The strongest part of the process was
when people actually stood up and identified themselves as the ones who
took some of the offensive actions, and recognized their mistakes in
front of the whole community. It felt like a very deep process started
in that conversation, one that will hopefully have long term affects on
our community as a whole and on each of us as individuals. To me, this
proves that we have the potential to protect each other and fight for
one another. I can get you to think about my oppressions without
breaking you.
I guess that the main things I am left with from this experience are
questions about the integrity and honesty that we have towards one
another. Throughout the convergence I was closely involved with some of
the attempts to confront the convergenceâs gentrifying effect on the
city. Often, it seemed like those attempts were very constructive and
successful. After hours of conversations on this subject, I felt like we
were getting somewhere. From my post-disruption perspective, I am not
too sure what to think about those conversations now. Some of the
disrupters participated in those conversations, and I am left to wonder
what their intentions were in doing so. A part of me fears that they
used those conversations in order to have a one-way conversation, in
order to educate others as to their feelings around gentrification
without really trying to come to a resolution around the problem. I want
to believe in the honesty of the dialogue we had, because doubting it
will have heartbreaking consequences for me, but at the same time, I do
not want my naiveté to help anyone get off the hook too easily.
I think that I am standing in a unique position towards what has
happened. I have close personal relationships with the convergence
organizers and some CrimethInc. writers, and at the same time I am a
person of color who understands the rage of the disrupters and often
feels disappointed with white âallies.â In many ways, I feel I am in the
middle of this. Throughout the convergence I heard some of the
disrupters (as well as others) criticize CrimethInc., critiques I shared
as well. At the same time I was surprised. My experience with having the
exact same conversations with individuals who are involved in
CrimethInc. or the convergence have always been positive. Iâve always
found listening ears to my difficulties, and have always received
invitations to step in and create space for what I want and need. When I
tried to convey these feelings to others they replied that they would
not participate in a dialogue because it would be fruitless. This
despair is actually based on legitimate past experiences, and it is so
depressing.
I hope that people will take the disruption as a sign as to how people
of color specifically feel in this community. There is a huge breach of
trust when it comes to how we respond to white supremacy. So many times
in the past this community has not responded to abusive or oppressive
individuals, and now many of us feel like other anarchists do not have
our back. How are we supposed to stand together against the threat of
prison time or pepper spray, when we donât stand together in front of
the mirror? I need this community to have a very clear zero tolerance
policy towards oppression. I need us all to make it very clear to each
other that we are in this together. I expect nothing less from us.
I hope the disrupters know what theyâve done. I hope they understand
they have torn this community apart. And now, I do not know how to go
back home, how to deal with friends who are traumatized, how to think
about my identity as an anarchist person of color, what to do with one
of the disrupterâs phone number that is still in my phone book, how to
deal with âfriendsâ who have supported your action. Now, I am not
traumatized, because this fucked up shit has broken my heart to a point
where I have no space to be traumatized. I have no space to feel
anything. Our identity as people of color is meaningless when your
actions bring tears to our eyes. Maybe it will seem rude or
inappropriate, but I have but one thing to say: fuck you.
Maybe you should consider the struggle as a two-way road. For me the
disruption is a wake up call to how we communicate with each other as a
community, around white supremacy as well as other issues. We need to
cut each other some slack and take more leaps of faith. We are all a
part of a common struggle for liberation, and maybe we need to trust
that others will be interested in hearing what we have to say and go
through an accountability process with us when needed. It is something
that is hard to do, but assuming that other anarchists are fundamentally
on our side will help us create a stronger community. The alternative is
what brought the disrupters to play an abusive role towards others.
Admitting that we do not share common interests and in fact do not
function as a community is something I am not willing to even consider
at this moment.
âL.
The account below is a personal, partial, and situated perspective on
the disruption that took place at the 2009 CrimethInc Convergence. I
claim to be speaking on behalf of no one except myself, although I am
speaking from the position of a queer woman of color who attended the
convergence, participated in the APOC caucus that took place at the
convergence, and was present during and after the disruption. Here is my
account of what happened. Although I cannot claim to be more ârightâ
than anyone else, I can try to offer an honest perspective.
About a week has passed and here I sit, trying to sort through notes,
thoughts and feelings, but feeling little motivation to pull it all
together because what gets written here will just be one piece amidst
the War of Representation which has already begun. But something needs
to be said; because there are people out there claiming to be speaking
on behalf of APOC and people of color in general, and it needs to be
known that they are not speaking on behalf of me. It needs to be known
that although I share the rage, frustration, and hurt felt by the
âdisruptors,â I do not agree with their actions. Not only because white
people were hurt and forced onto the streets without warning, but
because other people of color were hurt and felt silenced by the
disruptorsâ actions.
I canât talk about the disruption without first talking about the shit I
was feeling and all the things that happened leading up to disruption. I
woke up on the same morning as the disruption thinking, I need to get
out of Pittsburgh. Something about the space felt alienatingâI didnât
know many people there, conversations often felt dishonest and
polarized, and I was often the only woman of color in various workshops.
I felt small and unmotivated to speak. It would be unfair to say that an
atmosphere of hostility toward people of color is what caused this
feeling. Although I did hear racist comments get thrown around by a
small group of ignorant folk, it was largely the result of being
outnumbered by white boys, and feeling like there was no place or entry
point for my perspective.
The morning of the disruption I sat waiting for a discussion on cultural
appropriation to begin. I sat next to another person of color, who later
was a participant in the disruption. They engaged me in conversation and
we exchanged contact information. It felt good, especially after feeling
invisible for much of the convergence. When they asked me how I was
feeling at the convergence, I started crying and quickly left the room.
Later that day the APOC caucus met. The discussion revolved mainly
around the issue of gentrification, and racism/alienation in the radical
community. Toward the end of caucus I started crying again, and walked
back to the convergence space with another woman of color. We had an
awesome conversation, and she asked me if I wanted to be the MC at the
Cabaret, which was the event happening that evening. At dinner I talked
briefly with another person from the APOC caucus, who later was a
participant in the disruption. Although an action/intervention had been
planned, nothing was mentioned to other APOCers during the caucus. A few
people from Philly, who were not at the caucus, met in private with a
few people at the convergence who were in on the plan, but other APOCers
were intentionally excluded.
So I was one of the MCs at the Cabaret, the event that was taking place
when the disruption happened. When the last planned act finished, the
outburst happened. The disruptors started yelling at white people to get
the fuck out, screaming âWeâre not fucking kidding! We are not
pacifists!â A person of color from the caucus came up to me and
whispered, âAre you with us? Help us get peopleâs bags out of here.â
This is what really pissed me off. What the fuck was I supposed to do?
These people did not attempt to talk to me at all, left no room for
dialogue with other folk of color and yet expected us to join their
action. When this person asked me to join I felt pressured to choose
allegiances. In some ways, I did feel like it was my âdutyâ as a person
of color to participate in the âeviction,â but at the same time I knew
that what they were doing was fucked upâthat the indiscriminate eviction
of and aggression toward white people (many of whom were survivors of
abuse and queer, trans, and womyn identified) was not okay. So I did not
participate. But part of me felt guilty. Because I shared their rage
toward racism, but felt alienated by their tactics and exclusionary
approach.
It should be known that none of the people who actually participated in
the eviction were from Pittsburgh. Yet the rhetoric used by the
disruptors was a rhetoric of extension, and by this I mean that people
who declared war on the white people at the convergence were claiming to
speak on behalf of âthe neighborhoodâ and people of color in general. I
felt infuriated by the sense of entitlement and arrogance of the
language used during the eviction, because when you speak on behalf of
other people you essentially silence them. And I know from talking to
other people of color that many other perspectives were silenced by the
action.
Although the âsmack a white boy part 2â statement released by the
disruptors framed the others as the aggressors, what actually took place
was a two-way aggression instigated by this small group. Emotions were
fucking high. Yelling, pushing, and offensive comments were exchanged
back and forth between white people and the disruptors, people of color
and the disruptors, white people and white people. The chaos went on for
what must have been a couple hours. Eventually, it was just a few white
people and a group of people of color from both sides. One of the last
white people in the room was an arrogant white boy who was acting cocky,
making inappropriate comments, and sitting shirtless on a chair. I
yelled at him to get the fuck out of the room, and he left.
Some fighting took place between people of color and disruptors and they
made it clear that their war was not with us (other folk of color). They
told us we could stay, but when they were asked to leave by a woman of
color as some fighting was happening, those who were people of color not
participating in the action were called âObama,â a race traitor, and
accused of siding with the oppressors. One mixed person was accused of
siding with âthe part of him that was a colonizer.â
The conflict among people of color was starting to really wear me down
emotionally. Both sides did not want to talk. I started to cry as people
were pushing on both sides of a door and asked if we could sit down and
have honest conversation about what was happening. A few of the
disruptors knew from the caucus how alienated I had felt that day, but I
made it clear that I felt equally alienated by their actions. I could
tell by the look on the faces of the disruptors that they genuinely felt
bad about this, that their intention was not to hurt other people of
color. When I asked them why they excluded myself and others from
discussion about the action, one person said âWe didnât tell X and X
because we knew they wouldnât approve, and we didnât tell you because we
didnât know if youâd be with us.â This approach and the intentional
exclusion of people who may disagree seemed suspiciously vanguardist to
me, especially when acting on behalf of APOC.
When participant and non-participant people of color finally sat down to
talk, the first thing I asked was, âIs anyone here actually from
Pittsburgh?â Sadly, not one person was. Here we were, arguing about the
feelings of a community that was not ours, and I wondered, why do we
feel entitled to speak and act on behalf of a neighborhood we are not
from? The whole thing felt embarrassing and insincere.
But thatâs not to minimize the issue of gentrification. What kind of
impact would a 6-day convergence have on a neighborhood? How did the
neighborhood residents feel about the outsider presence? I imagine the
response was varied and incapable of being reduced simply to positive or
negative. When I walked around I smiled and spoke with people, one
person offered me help as I was fixing my bicycle, another person asked
me if weâd be coming back next year. But who knows, maybe my personal
positive interactions with locals was the result of also being a person
of color who doesnât look particularly punk. I know there were also
concerns raised about increased police presence, and this is definitely
a legitimate concern. But a meaningful and productive response to the
issue of gentrification is not one sheathed in dishonestly and dogma.
Over a week later I sit here contemplating the significance of it all,
besides feeling slightly traumatized and drained. I feel somewhat
disillusioned with our capability as people of color, as
anarchists/anti-authoritarians/autonomists, to speak from a place of
honesty and not ideology, to act on an ethic of care and not
entitlement, to let our rage be known without alienating the people we
claim to be fighting for. I feel angry about what took place (both the
disruption and the response of some white people), confused about my
allegiances, but ultimately, I canât hate the people who participated in
the disruption. Because these are the same people who had reached out to
me earlier that day as I sat alone feeling invisible, the same people
Iâve talked to at other APOC caucuses, the same people who share my
disdain for white supremacy, the same people I will probably be fighting
with in the future. But there needs to be accountability taken for how
their actions rendered other people of color invisible, and hurt both
ally white folk and people of color.
âJackie bitte_ein_kuss@yahoo.com
The disruption of the crimethinc convergence is, at the very least, a
complicated issue. There are some very legitimate issues raised by the
disruptors: the level of permissiveness and lack of internal critique or
review surrounding matters of racism, racial privilege, and white
supremacy within the anarchist movement for one. On the other hand,
there is also the aggressive, impertinent, and peremptory character of
the disruption.
The disruptors stated clearly and repeatedly that they were not
interested in conversation, negotiation, or mediation; and they issued
no demands except the immediate dispersal of everyone present. Even in
their own statement after the fact they offer only a rambling account of
what they did and why they chose this course of action, which
demonstrates a marked lack of clear thinking other than creating
controversy and spectacle.
Despite claims that âthe convergence was ended effectively and
efficientlyâ the scheduled events resumed the next morning and people
slept in the building the next evening. In terms of effect on the
surrounding neighborhood the disruption was only effective in creating a
brief mob scene in front of the building and an increase in police
activity in the middle of the night on day five of a seven-day
convergence.
In recent conversations with a friend who considers himself a âmemberâ
of APOC since 2003, he explained to me that APOC was always supposed to
be people of color organizing in non-authoritarian fashions within their
own communitiesânot engaging white people or taking on the role of
âracism policeâ (his words). The disruptorsâ interest in not only having
the eviction be a physical confrontation but claiming it as a
revolutionary action betrays their purported disinterest in the
attention of white anarchists.
I was as torn in the midst of the disruption as I am now wondering
whether my voice has a legitimate place or value in this discussion. I
have always identified as Nicaraguan, as I have always been aware of the
privilege gained from my white skin. This placed me in a peculiar
position as individuals walked around the room on the night of the
eviction singling others out and yelling in their faces âWhy arenât you
leaving?â I wondered whether it was better to aid in deescalating the
situation by leaving or to stay on principle in order to demonstrate
that the situation was not, in a variety of ways, as black and white as
it was being framed. When the question was leveled at me I heard the
words âIâm Nicaraguan, does that count?â leave my mouth and I decided to
stay.
While I was trying to convince a particularly belligerent white male to
leave I was chastised for even engaging him in discussion. I walked over
to where people who knew each other, or at the very least were friendly
acquaintances, had been forced on to either side of an argument.
Initially the disruptors were using grandiose language claiming to be
the voice of APOC, the entire neighborhood, and all gentrified
neighborhoods; essentially representing a lot more than they probably
had agency to discuss. When challenged about their right to
representation they would fall back on the explanation of âautonomyâ
whenever they felt backed in to a corner. This clearly illustrated the
absence of a logical foundation for the âaction.â At this point I left
feeling completely frustrated and helpless to improve the situation.
The next day there was a meeting for people to come and discuss what had
happened. The meeting, though necessary, was frustrating for a variety
of reasons. Most of the white people who had made the most egregiously
offensive statements had opted not to attend the meeting, and missed the
discussions and explanations of why those comments had been hurtful. A
lot of time was spent painstakingly creating a record of what had
happened and only an hour at the end was spent with an eye to the
future.
I remain very upset and angered by defensive racist comments made during
the eviction. I should have known better than to have trusted the level
of understanding of privilege professed by some of the white people
present. If anything can be gained from this experience it is the
knowledge that as an aspiring counterculture we are much further behind
in the depth of our discussion of racism (and many other forms of
oppression) than is acceptable. Weâre left with a lot of the same
problems that radical communities have been attempting to address for
decades. How can we foster a community that enables people to
comfortably address instances of racism in a productive manner? How can
we create and demand accountability for institutions as well as
individuals?
Situations like these are unfortunate because they force many people to
choose sides when they would rather not. There are clear and critical
ways of engaging with each other around issues of racism, sexism,
heteronormativity, etc. This was not one of them. Hopefully we can avoid
the steps backward in all directions that our current situation invites.
Hopefully we can have discussion instead of division.
â welch
It took me awhile to put this together, but here is my account and
response:
I attended the caucus this year, and had been a part of the APOC
caucuses at both the Athens â07 and the Milwaukee â08 CrimethInc.
Convergence. Like many of the organizing volunteers that year, I had
been distracted from the convergence by dramatic dynamics in my personal
life and the anxiety of having such a large gathering in a city. I had
originally made the call for an APOC caucus, and put it on the workshop
schedule. Sistah Souljah approached me about changing the time to
something that would work better for their schedule, and I agreed. They
moved it to the end of the day on Friday.
When the time came around for the caucus, I was overcome with all of the
things I wanted to talk about. I was looking forward to the opportunity
to discuss things with my peers-of-color, and had rushed to eat some
food before dinner, should the discussion run late. I missed the first
few minutes of the meeting because of that, and had missed the agenda
discussion. When I arrived at the circle with a companion and fellow
organizer, the group was sitting in a circle listening to Otto read a
statement from the gentrification workshop that had gone on earlier in
the convergence. After they were done, a report of the entire discussion
was passed around, each member of the caucus was expected to read part
of the dialogue. Essentially, we reenacted the conversation that
happened during the gentrification workshop. Every time someone read
something that someone had said that had implications of socialized
racism, a few members of the caucus would scoff or chuckle. At first, I
felt like people were taking the opportunity to decompress, but I slowly
began to feel as if certain members of the circle were trying to
stimulate this sort of response. I was frustrated that we were spending
so much time accelerating our frustration with the whiteness of the
space, and no time discussing how it was affecting us and especially
take advantage of having a safe place to do that within the caucus. I
tried to take a time out from the reading to ask if everyone wanted to
use this time to discuss this. Otto shook their head assertively, saying
that the group had already come to that decision. I looked around and
didnât see anyone that looked particularly excited about reading Ottoâs
gentrification notes for the entire caucus, and shortly thereafter
people started sharing their experience. Several people broke down to
explain how isolating the space had been. Otto attempted to characterize
CrimethInc. as a force of white supremacy in the way they depicted the
Rolling Thunder project. Iâm assuming that they didnât know that two
APOCers in the circle work on that project regularly. My opportunity to
open up and discuss things I had been holding on to for months, waiting
for this particular group of friends and acquaintances to ask for help
sorting out things that had been going on for me in my life as an
anarchist. The caucus broke for dinner. I didnât return to the second
half, I didnât feel like I had the space to make proposals to the
agenda. It was clear that some of the APOCers present had an agenda of
their own.
Screaming began in the back of the room. It was timely; the open-mic
style Cabaret had just ended its roster and the floor was opened for
anyone who wanted the space. My ears heard the language from the open
letter, and I knew it had something to do with the APOC caucus that had
happened earlier in the day. When I turned to look at who was doing all
the screaming, my heart sunk. Thinking it was a skit prepared by some of
the tearful APOC caucus-goers, I thought to myself: âFinally! Something
prepared and practiced to call this shit out.â Then I saw Jordan.
I had come to appreciate Jordanâs attitude during APOC conversations
that we had shared and caucused. Last year, In Milwaukee, Jordan swore
to never attend another CrimethInc. Convergence, or anything else
organized by white, able-bodied, cis-gendered, males again. I respected
Jordanâs decision then, and felt empowered knowing that one could
continue to be an anarchist and not have to be subjected to the
socializations and out-right oppression that linger and evolve in
anarchist spaces. I felt empowered knowing that one could do that; when
they lost their patience, if it hurt them to go on forgiving ignorance
and oppression, if they were hurt irreconcilablyâknowing that there was
a back door I could jump through should the time come when I just
couldnât take it anymore, when what I perceive as being good reasons to
organize with other anarchists and attempt to work out our differences
and privileges in the process arenât worth the isolation of experience,
the loneliness. Most of all, I took strength in knowing that I could
walk away from that shallow space forever and be well-adjusted, and find
an environment where people understood the privileges they had and
didnât have, and which ones I have and donât have and work with them.
When I saw Jordan screaming: âGET THE FUCK OUT, THIS IS NOT A JOKE. WE
DONâT WANT YOU HERE!â in their full-bodied wind suit and sunglasses and
gloves, I knew the myth of the âwell-adjustedâ abstinence jordan spoke
of was gone. It was only a year after I heard that oath, and there they
were, unable to move on. Still a stuck, bitter reactionary.
I looked around at peopleâs faces â white faces â confused and
uncomfortable. I felt like there was a spotlight on me. Every time the
disruptors shouted âAPOCâ, I felt like I was somehow implicated in the
action for announcing the APOC caucus earlier that week, for returning
from it earlier that day frustrated and confiding in my friends about
it. So I stood up and left the room. I think that I was one of the first
people to leave the roomâit only took me about 30 seconds to piece
everything together.
I left the room. I knew that they were there to carry something out,
whatever it was, and I didnât want to be responsible for ending it.
I pulled myself together about 20 minutes later and walked back into the
building to see chaos. Personal items were scattered everywhere,
medicine bottles rolling on the floor. I walked past people crying,
drinking rescue remedy out of the bottle. The space looked like it had
been raided. When I entered the main hall, where the disruption began, I
could see that the same rhetoric was being presented. Nothing had
changed since I had left besides the atmosphere of the space. I walked
around and asked the people that I knew who were involved in the action
why they felt like an eviction was direct action, why they hadnât asked
me to participate, whether or not they had considered how their action
was affecting the APOC present and participating in the convergence,
whether or not they had considered their action as a breach of my
consentâas they hadnât included me because they knew I would have had
reservations; is that really how anarchists should deal with the way
their actions affect their comrades? I didnât get satisfying answers to
any of my questions.
A physical confrontation followedâadmittedly paraphrasing here, an
exchange of words between opposing APOCers along the lines of: âSome of
the white people youâre evicting are my friends and family, you donât
have my permission to kick them out. â // âWeâre at war, xââ, we want
them out, and weâre not asking.â // âIf youâre at war with my family,
youâre at war with me.â \ which initiated a push-of-war from either side
of the door. Personally, I wasnât interested in a physical conflict. As
a sizeable man of color, I have been wrestling with the space I
physically take up for a long time, especially in recent months, which
was in fact one of the issues I had been intending to find counsel
through the convergenceâs APOC caucus. I donât feel comfortable using my
body, more my strength, to express my will. This has seemed like a
white-privilege-discussion blind-spot for me in the past. I wish the
white people around me could understand what its like to be a tall,
strong, brown-skinned male in this worldâespecially in the anarchist
communityâand what it feels like to be an intimidating presence in the
eyes of the white people around me. I can feel it, and the fact that
itâs threatening really affects my sense of self, my confidence in my
body. This is what made it particularly difficult for me to participate
in the back and forth pushing that followed. Knowing that had I wanted
to, Iâd have been able to physically remove each of them using whichever
intensity of force of violence I desired. It strikes me as ironic,
thinking back on it now, that I had been looking to my fellow anarchists
of color for supportive conversation earlier that day only to be shut
out by the opportunistic use of legitimate disillusionment during the
APOC caucus and that I was now wrestling with those issues alone, along
side of my friends, while physically wrestling with those who I had
hoped would be most helpful.
I was pushing the door against the disruptors only because people who I
cared about, who I knew cared for me, felt so strongly that the
disruptors needed to be forcibly removed. I wanted the disruptors to
express some concern for my feelings, to incorporate my needs into their
action enough so that we could feel like we were confronting white
supremacy together. Eventually, I grew impatient with the âWeâre not
here to discuss anythingâ // âThis is not a dialogue.â \ rhetoric
expressed by my former comrades to even the other people of color
present. So I joined in the pushing. This was an opening experience for
me. It felt good to draw a lineâanother admission is that as a person of
color in a predominantly white community and circle of friends, I rarely
draw such lineâand feel safe in doing so. It also felt powerful to be
checking in with the people I was pushing againstâit followed the logic
of âagreeing to disagreeâ in that I was able to say things like âIâm
going to push the door now, really hard, and it might hurt.â It felt
empowering to allow the disruptors an opportunity to brace themselves
and consider their convictions rather than indulging in a reactionary
physical confrontation. When the âWhite Alliesâ Marvel and Sand joined
in, I lost my sense of productive conflict. They had been making me
uncomfortable all convergence long with their obliviousness to the real
struggles facing anarchist people of color. The couple had spent the
entire convergence guilt tripping the mass of white folks with shallow
rhetoric about gentrification and privilege, but never once helped the
organizers communicate the policy information we had put together to
lessen our impact on the community. It became clear what they were
really there to do when they put their hands on the door opposite to me
and pushedâthey were agitators, doing the bidding of whichever force
they felt redeemed their white mark of guilt. At some point it would be
worthwhile to analyze how these two white folks were used by the agenda
of the disruptors, and whether that is the model role the disruptors
propose all âWhite Alliesâ play, if so, White Allies be warned.
This was the point at which I picked up a sheet of 4Ă8 plywood and
rushed the disruptors. I wanted to smear them out of the space with the
broad piece of lumber, to attack in a way that wouldnât be striking. Of
course, I had been thinking emotionally rather than logically and
instead of reducing the engagement, it escalated. Later during this
conflict I redislocated my right shoulder, and pulled a muscle in my
left. I would be sore for the following week.
When the conflict finally ended hours later, the remaining people of
color tried to have a conversation. During that conversation only two of
the disruptors that had participated in the convergence expressed any
remorse for the severity of the action. The others listed all the
criticisms typical of the anti-CrimethInc. platform: too lifestylist,
too white, drop out culture isnât relevant to people of color, the
project is too exclusive, dumpster diving is privileged, etc. As someone
who has, on frequent occasion, contributed to CrimethInc. projects, Iâve
never been particularly impressed by those who judge the entire project
on their dislike of the book Evasion. I donât feed myself shoplifting or
dumpster diving, Iâve never hopped a train, Iâve worked as a carpenter
for years, I dropped out of high school and can still contribute writing
to the project, I responded to a call for volunteers and it was
literally that easy to become a part of the group. All this is to say:
the common critiques of the project have never spoken to me. They seem
completely contrary to my experience. I knew many of the people at the
convergence didnât fall into this narrow view of CrimethInc., many of
them my close friends; I was saddened to learn that the reason for this
premeditated act was based mostly on these political disputes. The few
who were recruited to participate in the disruption were misled by the
ringleaders. I heard that Jordan said something to the effect of: âIâve
been searching for allies in the anarchist community for years and I
havenât found them here, but Iâve found them elsewhere.â
This begs two questions. Firstly, where has Jordan been for those years?
How have they not found any allies? I live in a small community with
only a few anarchist friends, I rarely travel or network within the
anarchist scene and Iâve met dozens of amazing, supportive anarchists
who are white. Secondly, where is elsewhere? Iâm an anarchist partly
because Iâm convinced that anarchism offers the most proactive
self-determined approach to overthrowing oppression. Socialism,
Communism, Nationalism, none of these approaches seem at all
appealingâIâm not saying that as a politician defaming opposing parties,
Iâm speaking as an individual seeking tangible paths and ways of
organizing my life to better find my way out of modern life under
capitalism and western civilization. Iâm not convinced there is an
elsewhere, not to say anarchists are the only alliesâbut if not
anarchistsâŠ? Iâm worried about Jordanâs intentions and direction.
Two of the most problematic things about this event for me involved the
appropriation and presumption of locals. First, the presumption that our
neighbors during the convergence were angry that we were there,
identified us as part of the gentrifying force, or felt displaced by our
presence. This was flat-out untrue in my experience. I had arrived days
before the convergence began to offer assistance in making last minute
preparations. Over those days and those of the convergence proper, I
participated in many conversations with locals. Most of them were casual
well-wishes. Some of them were discussions about what was going on in
the building, which they seemed at the very least indifferent to. I had
two conflicts, if you can call them that, out of maybe 30 interactions.
The first was with an older black woman who asked us not to park in
front of her house so her daughter could have a parking space when she
returned from work. I apologized to her for taking up the space, and
apologized about the space the convergence was taking up as a whole. She
thanked me for the apology, and insisted that all she cared about was
the parking space. The second was the night of the confrontation. I was
dazed, sweaty, and upset, and I came down from the second floor to see
people gathered outside planning the rest of the evening. A black man
maybe a few years older than me was making small talk with the people
hanging outside. He could see that I was upset and offered me a nod. I
nodded back. He extended his hand for a shake. In my deliriumâhaving
just given long, heartfelt hugs and embraces to my friends after the
disruptionâI held his hand in mine, in a tight, folded grip, for a
little too long. It was a humorous cultural faux pas. âEy man, donât be
squeezing my hand like that,â he thought that I was making a pass at
him. I explained that I had just been fighting with former friends, and
was a little out of it, and he accepted that. When he continued talking
to me, he outright refused to continue the conversation until I âjumped
in some water.â I was stinky and sweaty and off-putting to him. I
explained that I agreed that it was probably time for a shower. Even
after our embarrassing handshake misunderstanding, and being sweaty and
dirty and barefooted, he offered to take me to his brothers house to get
showered up. I could tell that he meant it. Of all my interactions with
people up until the disruption, these are the only two that suggested
any kind of conflict with the neighborhood. Iâm not dismissing that we
had a tough impact on the neighborhood, just that the people of the
neighborhood would need seven brave black-clad vanguards to step forward
and confront the convergence, if they really wanted us out. In 2005, not
more than 250 miles away, over 600 black and brown folks rioted in
Toledo to intervene in a National Socialist Movement/white power
demonstration and ended up setting fire to the bar frequented by local
politicians and police. If the kind of anger and resentment the
disruptors felt was really shared by the neighborhood, it seems likely
that CrimethInc. would have been targeted similarly. It is disgusting
that the disruptors tokenized the Garfield community the way it did.
My second major issue with the legitimization of the action was the way
participants claimed it for APOC, specifically Pittsburgh APOC. During
the POC discussion after the disruption, the disruptors began by proudly
claiming that the action was called for nationally. Then regionally.
Then finally, they retreated to say that Pittsburgh APOC called for the
action. When I asked if I could hold Pittsburgh APOC accountable for the
action, they said yes. But afterward they insisted that they were
carrying out their autonomous will. I saw this pattern as a reflection
of the poor communication they had with each other about the intentions
and legitimacy of their motives. Regardless, admitting that didnât
excuse the fact that the disruptors mislead the convergence attendees
about the support (read: lack there of) from the larger APOC community.
They only admitted that the action wasnât APOC sponsored, but led by
individual autonomist people of color after all of the white people had
left. It was clear to me that only two of the group really understood
that the action was meant as a political attack against CrimethInc., not
as a self-defensive action of people of color present at the
convergence. I was satisfied with the answer they gave me about
Pittsburgh APOC, and I intended to bring my complaints to them, as I was
convinced further conversation with the disruptors would be fruitless. I
came down from the upstairs where a local APOCista was waiting. They saw
in my eyes that I was about to ask a question that had been asked many
times already that night: âDo you have the contact for the Pittsburgh
APOC?â her answer: âThere is no Pittsburgh APOC, we havenât had meetings
in months.â Some part of me knew that this had been true all along. The
puzzle pieces fit togetherâOtto had been the token local who the entire
disrupting team could use to validate their action. Otto spoke for
Pittsburgh APOC because there was none. The disruptors marginalized APOC
by claiming it as an APOC action, for the remainder of the convergence
most people who had been present for the action referred to the
disruptors as âAPOCââAPOC this, APOC that. âIf APOC believes X then how
can I support them?â âAPOC wants all white people to go back to Europe.â
This was perhaps the least productive repercussion of the action. In the
days following, calls were made to APOCers all around the country, and I
kept hearing that there was very little support for the disruption in
the way that it occurred. Iâd like to request that APOCers join me in
maintaining the distance between APOC as a network and project and the
âAPOCâ claimed by the disruptors by public censure of the âSmack a White
Boy 2âł action. We need to hold the distinction or risk being pushed into
further marginalization and isolation.
I donât know what my account will contribute, as I feel as though much
of what I am about to describe has already been documented by other
âAPOC against the actionâ. So I will keep it short and try not to repeat
too much of what has already been said.
The 2009 Crimethinc. Convergence was the 3rd consecutive convergence I
participated in. I arrived Thursday night into an environment I felt
less than comfortable in. The first conversations I overheard were
arguments about race and how âweâre all the same on the insideâ and that
ârace shouldnât matter,â by a very aggressive and dominant white male.
This first impression of this years convergence made me feel quite
alienated. Unlike previous convergences where I felt liberated and
welcomed when I arrived, all I felt was anxiety, and incredible amounts
of tension in the atmosphere in Pittsburgh. This was enough to make me
decide to sleep in the car rather than in the convergence space.
Friday morning I started preparing my workshop about the 2010 Olympics
and indigenous and anarchist resistance to it, which I planned on
presenting on Saturday. While doing this and burning copies of my CD for
my performance at the âAnarchist Dance Partyâ, which was also happening
the following day I was approached by one of the disrupters who
introduced themself as âKill Whiteyâ and told me that they were supposed
to be hosting a workshop on âanti-racismâ which nobody had showed up to.
I thought it was pretty funny to see somebody who has given themself a
name that advocates killing somebody because of their skin color,
hosting a workshop on âanti-racism.â In any case, we talked about
gentrification, white privilege, and the âSmack A White Boyâ ANSWER
(distr)action. âKill Whiteyâ told me they had participated in that
action, and I asked how it went down and if they thought it was
successful. I made no secret of my reluctance to support this action
until I could learn more about what exactly went down and what the
consequences of this action were. âKill Whiteyâ agreed that âSmack A
White Boy pt 1â went over most peopleâs heads and that most of those who
were âsmackedâ had no understanding of the motivations or goals of this
action, and still donât have a clue. This confirmed my feeling that this
was confrontation for confrontationâs sake.
After this we both walked to the APOC caucus, at which many important
issues were brought up, including gentrification, unchecked white
privilege, white dominance in the anarchist scene (crimethinc. in
particular), and the lack of safe space and recognition of POC needs,
but âsmack a white boy pt. 2â was never brought up for discussion,
leaving many people of color in the dark about the pre-meditated attack
that night.
That night, as the cabaret ended, and 6-8 folks stormed into the room
yelling âget the fuck out of pittsburghâ, and âgo back to europeâ, while
throwing peopleâs bags around and making people cry, I immediately knew
lines were being drawn and which side I was on. This was not a
performative disruption, this wasnât calling people out, this wasnât
forcing dialogue about issues, it was a repeat of âSmack a White Boyâ,
and I wanted no part in it. I wanted it to stop.
I knew that most of the disrupters were from out of town, so their claim
to be representing the neighborhood we were gentrifying fell on deaf
ears. And their claims to be acting on behalf of people of color didnât
reach me either as I saw more people of color standing up to their
senseless tactics than standing with them.
When the time came for physical confrontation between them and the APOC
folks who disagreed with them I was ready. They declared war on
Crimethinc. They didnât care what the consequences of their actions
would be. They didnât give a fuck about kicking people out onto the
street in an unfamiliar city in the middle of the night. They didnât
care who they hurt. They attacked people for being white who didnât
identify as being white. They attacked women, they attacked trans
people, they attacked everyone in that room. They attacked other people
of color and called them ârace traitorsâ who were siding with their
colonizers.
They told all white people to leave, but told their âwhite alliesâ to
stay to back them up. One of these âwhite alliesâ (theyâre no allies of
mine) punched me in the face after trying to physically pull me away
from the door where I and other people of color were attempting to push
the disrupters out. So I guess itâs OK for the disrupters to have their
white friends back them up but not us?
The only feeling I had at this moment was âHow fucking dare you! How
dare you speak on behalf of POC. How fucking dare you speak on behalf of
this neighborhood that none of you are from. How fucking dare you
alienate us even more because we donât agree with your tactics.â
After all the white people left, including their âalliesâ we had a short
meeting, and I asked if they took other people of color into
consideration when doing this action. They obviously didnât and made no
attempt to claim they took us into consideration. We asked if we could
hold APOC, Philly APOC, or Pittsburgh APOC accountable for this action
but then they fell back behind the safety of having âacted autonomously
as individuals.â I remember thinking âwhat fucking cowards.â
Why not attack the real forces of gentrification while youâre in town?
Why not rally us to attack banks, real estate companies, condo
developments, and individuals who are profiting from the gentrification
in Pittsburgh? Why prioritize attacking those who would back you up in
the real struggle?
I confronted them about how much they had fucked me over. I explained
that I had put lots of resources into coming down here in order to
promote resistance to the 2010 Olympics, which is a massive force of
gentrification and colonization. Their response was and that I need not
worry, that âAPOCâ would handle it, and that white anarchists are
useless and that I shouldnât try to find support or organize with them.
This was enough for me to disengage. I had nothing left to say. Their
action personally fucked me over, alienated me, hurt my friends, and did
serious damage to anarchist organizing.
That night I slept in the convergence space with real comrades, both
white and POC. The next morning the convergence went on as planned,
although numbers had been cut in half. Still there were nearly 100
people who stayed until Sunday when it was scheduled to end. We were not
evicted, we were not intimidated into leaving Pittsburgh, we will not
grant you that sense of accomplishment. Once again, as was the case with
âsmack a white boy pt. 1â you accomplished nothing.
P.S. You should consider smacking a cop, politician, or banker instead
of anarchists and anti-war activists next time you decide to âSmack a
Whiteboy.â
-Testament
Boy Part 2â Attempted Eviction of the Crimethinc Convergence.
If I was an infiltrator I would have been laughing my brains out. I mean
to a cop, what could be better? An anarchist conference attacked not by
cops, not by white supremacists, but by other anarchists. A potential
threat to the system divided and debilitated, not by race as the
aggressors claimed, but by the egos of a few individuals.
What I experienced at the crimethinc convergence when a handful of
people connected through Anarchist People of Color (APOC) interrupted
and declared war, literally, on convergence attendees, was certainly the
most obnoxious and absurd thing Iâve ever seen anyone do in the name of
anti-oppression. The way I saw these individuals act â people Iâd
considered comrades moments before â was a manner of utter disrespect I
would consider tactically appropriate toward neo-Nazis, maybe toward a
board meeting of Lockheed-Martin, but never for anyone who I would
consider a potential comrade, let alone an anarchist.
But I guess that was their point wasnât it? This was an explicit act of
anti-solidarity. During their so called action the disruptors repeatedly
stated that they were âpastâ dialogue with white people. Communication
with white people would now consist of belligerent yelling of
hate-filled remarks in a relationship more akin to collies and their
sheep herds than anarchists to their fellow humans.
With their declaration that they were beyond dialogue with whites they
defined the terms of the confrontation, and compelled me to personal
involvement as a person of color. Soon I was neck deep in an ugly
confrontation with a few of the most obnoxious self-proclaimed
anarchists Iâve ever dealt with. It saddens me that I am posting this
for a number of reasons, the least of which is not giving those eyes in
law enforcement a few extra minutes of bonus entertainment, but when a
group of anarchists start acting completely below decency to other
people in the name of anti-oppression, their mentality must be
confronted.
Now, the grievance stated by the disruptors as the rationale for their
actions was that the convergence furthered gentrification. This is a
legitimate compliant, and I will address the issue a little further on
in this article, but first I would like to hand back a few grievances I
have with the disruptors and the stunt they pulled, sectioned
conveniently for their response.
Please be clear on the following points when looking at this article:
Color who was present at the confrontation. However, I am not speaking
only from my experience at the confrontation. Iâve known one of these
individuals for well over a year, and Iâve had disturbing whiffs of
their extremist mentality itching my nostrils for a while now. Before
recently, Iâve tried to explain these qualms away to myself, giving them
the benefit of the doubt because I respected them as a comrade and a
friend. Now I feel thereâs no choice but to confront their mentality
head on.
self-declared autonomous individuals. Iâve attended a number of APOC
caucuses and know this is not the dominant mentality. Iâll also note
that in this âactionâ, it was two people really, who did the most
talking (yelling). A third person was pretty vocal and obnoxious, but
almost reticent in comparison with the loudest two, and three other
folks largely refrained from yelling, mostly contributing their physical
presence. Out of these three I believe at least two of them had some
very mixed feelings about what they had gotten themselves into, and
because of this I feel almost unfair for referring to the six of them
together as âthe disruptors.â On the other hand, if they were really
autonomous as was claimed, they could have at any time called out any of
the moronic things their cohorts said. If you two are reading this,
read: better late than never.
both sides, I think pretty much everyone would agree, there was no
actual fighting. Explicit threats like âGet the fuck out, weâre not
pacifists!â and some scuffle, like pushing and pulling, but none of them
intending to knock people off balance or physically injure anyone. We
even drank water from the same jug in the midst of arguing. Isnât that
nice?
âevictionâs reprehensible qualities. In respect to the readerâs
intelligence I will be pointing out only a few things which may not be
quite as completely obvious to every single person reading this.
Hopefully this will provoke discussion and be a positive effect of this
most negatively minded aggression.
And nowâŠ
Their Actions.
In the report back from the first âSmack a White Boyâ âactionâ last
March, in which autonomous APOC disrupted a large anti-war protest,
writing off the anti-war movement in the U.S. as defunct by internal
white supremacy, the writer/s warned of âeven more ambitious direct
action in the futureâ. Apparently these writers idea of âmore ambitiousâ
is attacking people closer in social proximity to themselves, and
further from the apparatus of power where they should really be focusing
their energy.
I donât deny that it takes a special kind of audacity to walk into a
room of over a hundred people trying to have a good time, and in the
dead of seriousness, begin screaming your head off at them, but I do not
call this brave. In truth, the crimethinc. convergence was one of the
easiest and softest targets for a stunt of this kind: they knew it was
an explicitly anarchist space so they wouldnât get in trouble with the
cops, they knew from first hand interaction that most of the people at
convergences are generally nice folk and that they would not risk major
physical injury, and they knew that as white anarchists who considered
themselves anti-racist, most whites at the convergence could be easily
intimidated by the threat of being called racist.
Thatâs just the truth.
Throughout the disruption, and particularly at first, the disruptors
clearly implied that they represented people of color at large, and that
they somehow spoke for the neighborhood. They later denied this when
called on it, pointing out they never explicitly said âwe speak for
people of colorâ, âwe speak for the neighborhoodâ - but the message was
clear enough. At one point one of them insinuated to us POC who resisted
them as they tried throwing peopleâs bags out the ballroom â with a
surreal indignity â that we were somehow betraying them as people of
color by resisting them. For the record none of the disruptors were
native to Pittsburgh, let alone the neighborhood - but that didnât stop
them from yelling âGet the fuck out of Pittsburgh!â repeatedly as a
chief demand. This kind of presumptuousness about their mandate as
individual people of color is dangerously unaccountable, and in this
case, absurdly self-serving. When somebody pointed out to one of the
disruptors that their demand was unrealistic â it being around one
oâclock at night and impossible to hitchhike, a disruptor said they
could all head out, packs in hand, to the train yard.
A word really needs to be said now about the APOC acronym and its
potential for insinuating more than it means. The acronym APOC,
obviously, is not owned by anyone, and any anarchist person of color can
take up the banner. This is a good way for Anarchist POC to consolidate
with each other; also as individuals and small groups, the acronym APOC
brings an additional clout to our statements, especially toward white
anarchists. This is terrific when used by responsible individuals; the
problem comes when an individual or group, pushing their own agenda,
uses APOC coercively. If you oppose a certain APOC individual for
example, you have to be very careful in how you declare it, especially
if youâre white. Your opposition to this one APOC could be taken as
opposition to Anarchist People of Color in its wider sense, which could
then be taken as opposition to anarchist people of color in general.
In the case with the disruptors â and we have to keep calling them that,
thereâs no other name to call them by â they havenât identified as
anything other than autonomous APOCers, so those non POC who oppose them
have to be super extra special careful not to refer to them as APOC.
Itâs easy for them to sound kind of racist if they do.
Of course, by pulling this stunt, the disruptors have created a rift
within APOC, so hopefully this wonât be an issue in the future.
The disruptors are particularly lucky crimethinc had a strict policy
against cameras and recording without consent. A video or audio
recording of the event would have entirely spoken for itself. Youâd
think at such a public stunt like this, one would put a bit more thought
into her talking points, or, screaming points; instead they came with a
bunch of slogans about getting your white faces the fuck out of
Pittsburg, burying any potential for real communication under their
rage, while the classic âGo back to Europe!â was repeated not once, not
twice, but like, a lot.
This entire stunt reeked of a kind of rigid one-sided thinking more
appropriate to the Cult Of The Inverse Hierarchy or Ann Coulter Fan
Club, than a group of supposedly independently thinking radicals. Of
course, some of them would say similar things about me, and did,
pronouncing that I must have been brainwashed by whites for opposing
their stunt - then calling me a race traitor on top of it. Now
personally I find the term race traitor to be particularly unforgivable
among the genres of racial insults, because itâs not something that
flies out of your mouth when youâre mad and stupid: you actually have to
think about it before you say it. Race traitor. To anyone reading this
who doesnât already get why the concept of Race Traitor is so
oxymoronic, simply think about it: to commit treason you must first give
oath to the thing you are committing treason against (itâs called free
will)⊠then you betray it; thatâs what traitor means. To call someone a
traitor based on how they were born is utter dogmatic ignorance. I was
born with Filipino blood so I choose what that means for me, and to me
it does not mean spraying Roundup on the stalks of interracial
solidarity that countless people of all colors work long and hard to
develop.
Response note: in their âSmack A White Boy Part Twoâ report back, the
disruptors said this about their use of the term: âthere are rumors
afloat that the term ârace traitorâ was used towards mixed people and
others who werenât participating. this is untrue. the word was used
towards specific individuals and their personal history of posturing a
role in upholding, defending, and ultimately furthering white supremacy.
for instance, by the spreading the idea that it is because we are not
doing enough, that it is our fault that we are oppressed.â I donât even
know what to say to this except that Iâve NEVER said anything like that,
and the person who called me that name had never met me before that
night.
It is absurd to think that people should agree with you, or have any
obligation to sympathize with your hateful stunts, based on the fact
that they are people of color.
Anti-Oppression
I also want to express this bizarre sense if irony I felt in the
presence of people who could scream into other peopleâs crying faces,
who could blatantly violate other human beings consent, and still felt
qualified to scream-lecture people on any perceived lapses in
anti-oppressive etiquette, or use of privilege, at the same time.
This just doesnât make sense to me. If you really need to be a huge
ginormous asshole, donât castigate people for farting!
Favorite example: At one point nearing the end of the conflict when the
disruptors were getting ready to file back in their car and ride back to
Philly, one of the two most vocal of them saw fit to scream âPut your
shirt on!â to a white guy about a hundred feet away, proceeding to call
him both sexist AND racist for having exposed nipples in an âall blackâ
neighborhood. Goodness gracious! Maybe if youâre so full throttle eager
to scream at anyone who disagrees with you for anything having to do
with privilege, that you canât even get your ists straight, you might
want to try breathing in between righteous call outs.
Look, all our work rooting out oppression in our interactions and
mentality â to me, the whole purpose of it all, is very simply to not be
an asshole. Can somebody please explain to me the important intellectual
difference between being fucked up and being an asshole? Cause to me,
itâs all the same beast. You could say Iâm being over simplistic and
that Iâm over generalizing here, and yeah - you could be right, but you
gotta admit, if you dedicate yourself to the cause of anti oppression,
and strive to root out oppressive tendencies throughout your personality
and lifestyle⊠and yet you still tower over people as a massive
hyperalienating jerk - you must have missed something somewhere.
What could it be?
It is clear to me that this action was planned by people who want to
turn hierarchy upside down, not level it. Cheerleading along to the
attempted eviction were three or four âwhite alliesâ whose pre-arranged
job was to help the disruptors move bags, and echo the eviction message
to their white brethren.
Wait a secondâŠ
The disruptors repeatedly stated that they were beyond dialogue with
white people⊠so if theyâre relationship with these âalliesâ was not one
of dialogue, what was it?
Itâs one thing to tell whites to fuck off â I mean there, youâre at
least cutting off your relationship with them honestly â but to keep
some of them around to echo your demands and move luggage for you?
Theyâre not worth dialoging with, but you donât mind letting them do
your bidding? (I guess in a historical sense, this is a pretty accurate
use of the term âAlliesâ) Establishing a relationship in which one party
defines all the terms and holds all the power, is damn hypocritical for
anyone who claims to oppose hierarchy.
So I guess youâre not quite ready to break up with whites completely. In
between insulting them you wouldnât mind keeping them around some of the
time, as long as you decide the where, when, and the how. I know Iâm no
Dr. Phil, but if thatâs the only relationship youâre willing to maintain
with whites, maybe you should follow your words to their conclusions and
stick to an honest break up.
__, at earlier caucuses with you I had misgivings about the relationship
you seemed to want to establish with your âwhite alliesâ, but I assured
myself that what seemed to be hierarchy, was a relatively insignificant
and understandable response to white oppression. Now it is plain to me
that youâve gone too far. The relationship you want to establish with
white allies reminds me of the relationship of the Catholic Church to
its pupils.
Church to the Catholic: You were born into sin, but if you repent to me
and do what I say without question, some of your sin will be absolved
and you will be a better Christian.
You to the âWhite Allyâ: Based on the way you were born, you are racist,
but if you kiss my ass and follow what I say, without question, some of
your racism will be absolved and you will be a better anti-racist.
By pointing this not-so-hidden hierarchy out, I am in no way advocating
symmetrical race relations. It is undeniable that this society â
anti-establishment movements included â is entrenched with white
supremacy, and to combat this without getting assimilated into a
systemically racist structure, minorities must claim the autonomy to
organize amongst ourselves. In white dominated movements we must
structure our involvement as we choose - but this doesnât give you some
special mandate to establish hierarchy where it doesnât belong.
Personally there are two things I consider indispensable to any working
relationship, and you deny them both. They are:
Dialogue â the ability of each party to have their say â and Mutual
Respect.
Without both of these attributes, agreed on both ends, a relationship is
clearly hierarchical and should be restructured, ended, or taken outside
the anarchist community.
Yeah, I can say pretty much anything I want to a white person and I
still wonât be racist because reverse racism isnât real. Please! If you
want to talk seriously about racism, stop using the word like itâs a
toy!
At one point during the confrontation, a white person responded from
beneath a pile of racial insults that they thought the disruptors were
being racist themselves. One of the disruptors responded by informing
them that âreverse racismâ doesnât exist, or wasnât real or something to
that effect. They even cited some obscure etymology to support this
argument. Impressive. This opinion that âreverse racismâ doesnât exist
was expressed by a few whites at the convergence as well, and Iâm pretty
familiar with debate on the subject.
If you think about it for a few seconds though, it becomes clear that
the whole argument on whether âreverse racismâ is real or not is founded
on a false binary. In the real world there are many different races and
many dynamics of racism between them. The term âreverse racismâ implies
only two types of racism, normal and reverse.
So yeah, âreverse racismâ isnât real, in the sense the term itself is
intellectually bunk, but that doesnât make yelling slogans like âgo back
to Europe!â and âsmack a white boy!â and then denying any racism on your
own part any less moronic. Ultimately the idiocy of your statements
stands on its own, whether or not you deny their racism. Iâm more
interested here in exploring the irresponsible way in which you use the
term.
Obviously, RACISM as a word, carries a tremendous amount of political
power, especially among radicals. My question for you is, why do self
proclaimed anarchists feel the need to own a word that carries so much
political clout but can only be wielded in one direction.
Think about it: words â as you clearly understand â can be used very
powerfully as weapons. But thereâs one thing about weapons: every person
who takes up a sword or a gun, understands that the same power the
weapon gives them, could be used against them if it landed in another
personâs hand. You canât have a gun that can only be pointed in one
direction. Who would conceive of such a thing? (I mean, besides You Know
Who)
Weâve all seen what happens when a group of people try to own and
completely control a word as a weapon: look at the U.S. governmentâs use
of the term TERRORISM. In corporate media, the term Terrorism is
ascribed only to enemies of U.S. interest; nothing the U.S. or its
allies do could ever be terrorism. If you point out that acts committed
by our military perfectly exemplify our governments very own definition
of terror, they scoff at you, call you marginalizing names, and say your
supporting the terrorists. Essentially theyâre taking an extremely
powerful word and trying to keep all of its power to themselves. In
doing so they preclude any use of the word, and its power, in a two way
communication (dialogue), and monopolize it as a tool and weapon for one
way dictation (monologue). What youâre trying to do with the term RACISM
is essentially the same function on a smaller scale.
You unaccountably and irresponsibly throw âracistâ at any white folk who
donât âallyâ to you, but you wonât admit to racism even in the midst of
catching your breath after a hateful âYou Peopleâ rant? Give me a break.
Honestly, if you wanted to use the term in such an unaccountably one way
function like this, you should have at least been way more subtle about
it. Instead you bluntly flaunted the contradiction in front of peopleâs
faces, time and again, thinking your irrefutable âno reverse racismâ
axiom protected you from being called on it. You have abused this power
too much, and fatally, you were painfully obvious in how you did it!
Now, like a little wanton child whoâs played too loud, and too hard, and
hurt too many people with a grown-up tool, itâs time your warped
conception of racism was taken away from you.
Again, you cannot skew these arguments to say I am advocating symmetry
in race relations within the radical community. The principle of
equality is only an abstract ideal when not considered in the context of
privilege inequity that is our society. White people do need to realize
that having racism perpetrated against them does not suddenly give them
any excuse to deny their privileges within the social framework of this
society, nor does it mean they suddenly know what it means to be POC in
the U.S.
There; thatâs the long way to say it. The short way is this: You
organize an âactionâ called âsmack a white boyâ in which you scream
hatefully into a group of white people you donât even know, and still
try to hold that youâre not racist? Youâll have better luck convincing
me that two plus two equals five.
Okay, gentrification is a very complex issue. It does nothing for
anybody to oversimplify it and put it in black and white terms. Am I
saying thatâs what the disruptors did? Yeah, pretty much.
In the disruptorsâ eyes they were taking this hard, line in the sand,
donât step across it, Whoops, you already stepped across it now youâre
gonna get it, stand. I donât know all of what theyâve learned about
gentrification, but if my knowledge on the issue is remotely accurate,
it generally takes months for gentrification to occur, often years. The
convergence lasted for a span of about a week.
Gentrification in poorer, darker skinned neighborhoods generally occurs
through permanent settlements, especially ones that bring capital into
the neighborhood. The convergence clearly did not bring a lot of money
into the neighborhood. One of the disruptors reiterated the talking
point that white convergence attendees were the âpioneersâ of
gentrification. They seemed to have forgotten that pioneers generally
stay where they pioneer to for more than one week.
I am not saying that the convergence didnât contribute to
gentrification. We know it probably did, but in an intangibly small way.
Please read carefully here, I am not saying it contributed to
gentrification in a negligibly small way, I say an intangibly small
way - as in, whatever gentrification occurred as a result of the
convergence, the damage is immeasurable because the convergence was such
a minor and short term event.
Compare to spending money at a corporate establishment: when you buy
some crap at Best Buy, you know you are feeding the beast. You also know
you are not contributing nearly as much as if you owned the store and
that this act of consumption alone will not keep the establishment
going - but in the overall scheme of things, you know your doing
something bad. While most of you know what Iâm talking about here, I
know thereâs the few perfect anarchists reading this who are like,
âwell, I never give money to corporations, period.â To you folks, I can
only earnestly hope that you never use the pedestal of your virtue to
castigate us imperfect anarchists for our sins â and if you do that you
wonât be such vindictive jerks about it.
Some might argue that this is a bunk comparison, that what the
organizers did by planning the convergence in a mostly black
neighborhood was much worse than spending X amount of money at X
corporation. Maybe. Maybe not. One thing we should at least agree on is
that itâs an immeasurable, incalculable crime, not because of its size
and magnitude, but because of its lack of size and magnitude. Nobody
really knows how bad it is.
Iâm going to quote Jesus here alright? Iâm not a Christian but this
quote seems really apt: âLet he who has not sinned cast the first
stone.â It seems to me that this quote is actually congruent with the
disruptors rational for their stunt; as far as I can gather, in their
minds they are without racial sin. But anybody within U.S borders who
believes they are beyond race privilege is kidding themselves. The
privilege that being âAmericanâ grants us is inextricably linked with
race privilege: the global system of capital and governance itself is
racist through and through.
If this is a precedent for future actions â which the disruptors made
clear of â who is an unworthy target? Since we are truly all guilty does
that mean we should all scream at each other endlessly to somehow be
better activists because of it?
I wasnât at the first half of the convergence. I know numerous
discussions took place around race and gentrification. Although I wasnât
at these discussions I can pretty safely bet they did more to educate
the white people at the convergence about gentrification than the
eviction stunt did. Though screaming can be fun sometimes, it usually
sucks as a tool for education. What I am saying here is that it was not
unreasonable for the organizers to have hoped that more long-term good
could have come out of bringing this discussion about gentrification to
the forefront of the conference, than damage to the neighborhood done by
the short-term spike in white faces visible on that particular corner of
the neighborhood. Maybe they were wrong. Maybe the convergence should
not have been there. Nobody really knows because itâs an intangible,
incalculable sin. If somebody has credible data on how much a weekâs
fluctuation of white skin on a street corner contributes to
gentrification in Pittsburgh, Iâd love to see it. Until then my crucifix
stays in the garage.
There have been various speculations on how people native to the
neighborhood felt about the convergence, but most of us know it would be
silly to think there was anything resembling an overall consensus.
Nobody I talked to had a problem with it, but Iâm sure some people were
weirded out as well. As for disruptorâs reference to the area as an âall
black neighborhoodâ â that is simply inaccurate. Nobody can speak for
the entire neighborhood. As far as I can tell from their rhetoric, the
closest thing theyâve offered as a coherent response to gentrification
is hard-lined segregation. âGet the fuck out of all-black
neighborhoods!â âGet the fuck out of Pittsburgh!â
Am I naĂŻve for thinking it possible that some infoshops in minority
dominated areas, like the one less than a block down the street from the
convergence space, might actually contribute more good to the
neighborhood than harm through the apparatus of gentrification? If the
only response to gentrification is truly total segregation, the divisive
mechanisms of capitalism have succeeded in dividing and dismantling us
once again.
If I, at any time came off as kind of caustic during this article, itâs
cause Iâm fucking pissed. This is not about crimethinc. This is about
human decency, about free thought, about knowing who the enemy is, and
about not doing exactly what the feds want us to be doing by tearing
each other apart.
To any fellow anarchist people of color who feel tempted, or obligated,
to fall in line with this kind of hate-filled action - please consider
how damaging and far reaching such explicit acts of anti solidarity will
be to the real things we should be fighting for. Please, donât subscribe
to a mentality that buries reason and communication under the noise of
vengeful group think - a mentality that throws fuel on the fires of
racism rather than extinguishing it.
To those few aggressors who perpetrated this stunt, please, I ask you to
consider the damage you are doing to a movement that could pose a real
threat to your true enemies. Please consider whatâs really at stake here
and ask yourself if itâs really worth imposing yourself, so forcefully
in gashes of division, upon spaces for potential solidarity. To make
change happen you always have to work with people who are different than
you, who have different values, different prejudices, and yes even
different backgrounds - but if you cannot work with them it does not
mean you have to directly work against them.
To those self-styled âwhite alliesâ who thought they earned some kind of
anti racist points by assisting or endorsing to this action, I have very
special note for you:
Endorsed the AttemptedThe convergence didnât end, by the way. Itâs
simply a lie to say it did Eviction.
Dear Aspiring White Ally.
I see that you are very interested in listening and coming to terms with
your white skinned privilege, by supporting people of color in
establishing our ground in a largely white demographic. Awesome! I also
see that youâve aided or endorsed an âactionâ of outright
anti-solidarity and ignorant buffoonery, that has disastrous
repercussions far beyond crimethinc. to the below/left struggle against
imperialism as a whole. Hmm⊠Did you think these two activities somehow
go hand in hand? I find this somewhat disturbing.
I know some of you sometimes feel uncomfortable disagreeing with people
of color, especially when the issue involves race. I have heard a few of
you say âI donât think it is really my place as a white person to object
to the actions or tactics of a person of colorâ. To me, these statements
sound like a young child saying âSince Iâm a kid, I canât really object
to the things that grown-ups do.â
Itâs hard for me to know how to react to statements like this, but one
of the first questions that comes to my mind is: âWhat if two grown-ups
disagree?â
To some of you, it seems the answer to this problem was to go with the
more radical-seeming answer. Maybe to some of you this is what being
radical means. Maybe some of you thought the disruptors would not call
you racist if you supported them â or that they would only smack you
once, and not very hard. Maybe you thought if you went along with their
initial demands for eviction, you wouldnât have to really go all the way
back to Europe. Whatever you thought, I hope youâre thinking a little
clearer now, and out of your sense of reason; not guilt.
The truth is, you donât need me, or any other person of color to give
you permission to question, and object to this stunt, this mentality,
this ignorance, because you are a grown-up. Youâve already had years to
explore the tortuous maze of implications that stretch out behind the
Two Grown-Ups Disagree Paradox. You know thereâs no easy answer.
You know that POC are not really as monolithic an entity as a small
group of presumptuous individuals may construe us. We speak, think, and
act for ourselves, and if any person of color claims that they represent
the interests of real POC - as opposed to race traitors - they should be
viewed with the firmest suspicion.
Why, as a person of color, would I be telling you this? One explanation
is that I have been brainwashed by you, as one disruptor suggested.
Really, itâs simple. As a POC I can easily imagine a number of benefits
to white people who are so willing to go along with what a POC says,
concerning race issues, that they may be willing to put their ethics and
critical thinking on hold to support them or stay passively out of their
way; but, I can also think of at least as many negative consequences to
such white people⊠especially if they share the same community with me.
What if, for random example, they become influenced by POC of, say,
questionable character?
Likewise, it does not comfort me as a POC to know that thereâs white
folks who will take hate filled insults like âGo back to Europe!â to the
face, from a POC, and still condone their actions and act as apologists
for them, any more than it comforts me as a male to know there are women
who will take blatant verbal abuse from their husbands and still not
leave them. It actually makes me kind of sad.
Before concluding, I would like to extend a plague on anyone who uses my
words to rationalize their ignorance of white privilege, or their
perpetuation of white supremacy. The distinction I try to draw here is
really not all that complicated. It is the difference between listening
without asserting yourself, and following; between respect and
ingratiation; between being patient and letting yourself be blatantly
disrespected.
Iâm not trying to draw perfect fine lines here. The formation of more
rigid lines and easy binaries is the last thing Iâm hoping for. There
are no easy answers when it comes to being a good ally, especially
toward people of color. Being a good ally toward one person of color
would be easy. A small group of POC with erratic internal dynamics - a
little harder. Being an ally to people of color in the world at large:
that is a long term objective worthy of the most ambitious anarchist - a
goal that brings endless questions and paradoxes along with it. At this
point, an essential step toward this goal is understanding that
supporting the actions of a small group of POC, does not necessarily
make you a better ally to people of color, it makes you a better ally to
those People of Color.
It is possible, without extenuating the reality of privilege disparity
amongst ourselves, to remember that beneath it all, nobody is immaculate
of privilege. Unless you are dead, or about to die, you can be humbled
by the fact that you live with privilege. And only a fool assumes they
can know the privilege of someone theyâve never met before.
For me, the most important distinction, if we are all guilty, draws
between guilt and humility. Guilt is heavy, opaque, and reactionary.
Humility is buoyant, reflective, and proactive. Generally under the
influence of guilt, people act more stupidly, while when humbled, the
possibilities are endless.
Thanks everybody who took the time to read this,
Yours in revolution,
Dooiter