💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-bring-it-to-the-yard.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:29:35. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Bring it to the Yard
Author: Anonymous
Date: May 2005
Language: en
Topics: Anarchist People of Color, anti-racist, a reply, white supremacy
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20100604004219/http://illvox.org/2008/05/bring-it-to-the-yard-an-open-reply-to-white-progressivesradicals/
Notes: A guest editorial, “An Open Letter to White Progressives/Radicals,” published on illvox.org generated a lot of email on matters the anonymous author raised. These replies mirrored much of the online discussion of the piece. In a new addition to illvox.org’s Tuesday polemics series, the author of “An Open Letter” has forwarded a new editorial as a public response.

Anonymous

Bring it to the Yard

Dearest white progressive/radical,

I have to confess I had no idea how true the forecasts made in “An Open

Letter to White Progressives/Radicals” would be. I had a hunch I was

correct on many predictions, but how accurate I was proven was a

surprise.

I wanted to share why “An Open Letter” was written, and what the

outcomes can be. I’ll try to refrain from the supposedly unconstructive

commentary this time, though I make no promises.

As I made clear in “An Open Letter,” I have no faith white activists

have the wherewithal to be the change they envision or to upend white

supremacy. I have witnessed too many whites mutilate the idea of

radicalism in defense of whiteness to believe otherwise. I wrote the

original piece as a critique of white behavior in movements, and to

offer people of color what the elders call a teaching moment. People of

color should take every opportunity to learn how whites strategically

position matters of race when confronted, and to learn those lessons

hopefully before a situation happens so we can hold steady and not get

ground up in the process.

I do not mind throwing out a critique of white behavior in movements,

because whites can’t take my legitimacy or voice among people of color,

who know virtually every word I wrote in “An Open Letter” is true. I

have nothing to lose in your society or your movements.

The language of “An Open Letter” was chosen more carefully than many of

you may realize. Deliberately provocative comments were stated to

reflect what people of color, who may be angry over a situation, may

say. People of color in local political scenes who raise criticisms of

racism experience the same white hatred of which I was the target.

though they are mostly unknown or dismissed.

Picking fierce language, in my experience, always demonstrates the

contradictions in radical movements. A few whites, in this case, will

grasp the spirit of the concerns. The rest show their true colors as

reactionaries. I wanted “An Open Letter” to educate people of color

about tactics whites use to defend racism, white supremacy and their

society when white emotions are at their most honest. As the old maxim

goes, you find what people are made of in a crisis.

Reactions to “An Open Letter” demonstrate the entrenchment of notions

such as reverse racism (a right-wing term if ever there was one), the

nonexistence of race to whites, my-daddy-didn’t-own-slaves type

arguments and white working class deification, though the fascist nature

of the white working class throughout history is avoided. These concepts

are not just common among garden-party liberals, but epidemic among

white radicals and progressives. Acknowledging whites’ need for

rudimentary political education is less a concern for me, but for people

of color who wish to work in multiracial coalitions with whites and

whites who see the racist nature of progressive movements, these

examples should be addressed in your work.

Not everyone who disagrees is a reactionary. Although such never

happened this time around, I have had discussions with those who were

able to articulate a political disagreement. Most respondents to “An

Open Letter” weren’t nearly as smart. The reactionaries, as I predicted

in the original letter, used the language, examples and anecdotes as

license to mimic stuff most of us would never dream coming out of a

conservative Republican’s mouth, let alone a radical or progressive.

Then the behavior was justified by saying the language of “An Open

Letter” was coarse or without nuance or unconstructive. They did not

understand the deliberate use of such language as a test of sorts.

A well-meaning (white) comrade of mine likens this kind of behavior,

which we’ve both seen before, to headlines in every major city. A person

of color, most often Black, may be emotionally despondent. The cops are

called, and the tension heightens. Despondent person of color, having

had possibly many negative experiences with those who represent control

and power in this society, becomes even more emotional. Not particularly

caring what the person of color is despondent over, cops demand said

person of color calm down. Now fear has mixed with the already troubled

cocktail of emotions, and the person of color becomes even more frantic.

Cops think the person of color will harm them and put a bullet in

(usually) his head. When asked, the cops say they felt threatened and

thus justified. Cop supporters just assume the cops are right that the

darkie had it coming to him. End of story.

Dramatic? Yes, but there’s a summary effect that happens to people of

color in political movements. When a person of color raises a concern,

even if it sounds unconstructive or emotional, it’s generally done

because that person cares about a problem and believe in a political

movement, or else they’d be in Toastmasters. White people, who some

claim also care, show that care by minimizing the concern through

deflection, mocking and other forms of intimidation. A person of color

who had the courage to say something becomes frustrated with the lack of

concern and willingness to defend a way of life rather than act against

it, and that consternation is used as another weapon against him/her.

Pretty soon, the original speaker is marginalized and disempowered —

effectively politically killed off and disappeared.

I remain amazed, but not surprised, how many people interpreted “An Open

Letter” to be about Kevin Tucker. For the record, the piece was written

for and inspired by the reasons above, not Tucker or Seal Press, which

to me is far more important a problem anyway. Seal Press, which was

named first in my sarcastic close, is engaged in a major conflagration

involving Amanda Marcotte’s recent book emblazoned with images of a

white Amazon beating down Black savages; the silencing of women of

color; and the non-apology apology the ‘progressive’ press issued. The

“Go Light” ignorance pales in magnitude to the Seal Press controversy,

yet most radicals are absent in the debate.

As I hope I made clear, a white person running off at the mouth about

choosing to be white or associated white supremacist propaganda doesn’t

make that white unique. Such people certainly don’t merit any more than

a comment. I am being totally honest when I say people of color have

experienced whites like this for all of our lives. We know how bigoted

behavior will be defended, and how whiteness is protected. Centering a

debate around a single white person, rather than the concerns of people

of color who raise specific issues, is an example of white privilege.

Related to the protection of whiteness, when whites center a debate

around a single white, typically the defenders of said white begin

constructing straw men to attack, but distort the original point. Thus,

people claim everything from “An Open Letter” being really about some

other issue or Western civilization or guilting whites so people of

color have power in a ghosts-of-reverse-racism scenario. It’s not really

worth honoring such poor rhetorical skills with a reply, save to say I

know what I write, how to write and anything you make of it is your

inference, not what was actually written. Such tactics are critical for

people of color to understand. Hold your ground and don’t get caught up

in distractions.

As for outcomes, the reactions to “An Open Letter” are positive for

people of color for a few reasons. In addition to the exposure of

authoritarian, rightist elements, we see the need prioritize racial

justice education and self-defense as a focus internally. Whites,

including white radicals, tend to associate all the people of color as

the same without understanding our cultural and ideological differences;

for instance, I deleted a lot of forwarded email from whites angry about

“An Open Letter” taking sides on scene debates I know nothing about.

They assumed, being a person of color, I must have heard about it

through the Underground Railroad or something and am now putting them on

blast over it.

People of color also need to be confident in ourselves enough to

understand we do not need whites for validation of our ideas. Whites,

even progressive ones, have historically misrepresented the work of

people of color. Whites only respect dead people of color and vilify

them while living, from Martin Luther King to radicals of color who

dispute appropriation. Respect of and support for one another as people

of color in a political space is important, and centering whites in a

struggle plays their game. As Ashanti Alston notes, radicals of color

and whites may need each other, but people of color will make change

without them if we need to do so.

Was I nicer this time around?

Oh yeah. Fuck Chuck Munson. Racist asshole.

Adoringly,

Another Anonymous Person of Color, still supporting illvox.org