💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › budour-hassan-the-colour-brown.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:59:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The colour brown Author: Budour Hassan Date: 24 July 2013 Language: en Topics: decolonization, white supremacy, Egypt, black bloc, Spanish Revolution, Israel/Palestine, Anarchists Against the Wall Source: Retrieved on 24 August 2015 from https://budourhassan.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/the-colour-brown-de-colonising-anarchism-and-challenging-white-hegemony/ Notes: A French translation of this article here, thanks for Dyhia Tadmut
The appearance of the Egyptian Black Bloc in Cairo’s streets in January
2013 triggered gullible excitement in Western anarchist circles. Little
thought was given to the Egyptian Black Bloc’s political vision – or
lack thereof – tactics, or social and economic positions. For most
Western anarchists, it was enough that they looked and dressed like
anarchists to warrant uncritical admiration. Facebook pages of Israeli
anarchists were swamped with pictures of Egyptian Black Bloc activists;
skimming through the US anarchist blogosphere during that period would
have given one the impression that the Black Bloc was Egypt’s first-ever
encounter with anarchism and anti-authoritarianism. But as American
writer
, the jubilant reaction many Western anarchists have towards the Black
Bloc raises unflattering questions concerning their obsession with form
and representation, rather than content and actions. And in this regard,
these anarchists are not different from the Islamists who were quick to
denounce the Black Bloc as blasphemous and infidel merely because they
looked like Westerners. Further, many Western anarchist reactions to the
Black Bloc unmask an entrenched orientalist tendency. Their disregard of
Egypt and the Middle East’s rich history of anarchism is one
manifestation of this. As Egyptian anarchist,
illustrates, anarchism in Egypt dates back to the 1870’s in response to
the inauguration of the Suez Canal; Italian anarchists in Alexandria
took part in the First International, published an anarchist journal in
1877, and took part in the Orabi revolution of 1881; Greek and Italian
anarchists also organised strikes and protests with Egyptian workers.
Yet these struggles are nonchalantly shunned by those who act today as
if the Black Bloc is the first truly radical group to grace Egyptian
soil.
This article argues that the shallow reception of the Black Bloc is but
one example of how “white anarchism” has yet to break away from
orientalist prejudices that plague the Western left more generally. I
will demonstrate here that this failure can be attributed to the fact
that anarchism has not gone through the complete process of
decolonisation. I begin by showing that colonial attitudes made the
Republicans of the Spanish Revolution neglect Spanish colonialism in
North Africa, leading them to focus solely on fighting fascism at home.
That the Spanish Revolution continues to serve as an important reference
for today’s anarchist movements, it is not surprising that similar
colonial attitudes lead today’s movements to write-off centuries of
anti-authoritarian struggle in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Such an
incomplete process of decolonisation also means that many Western
anarchist movements and the dominant anarchist discourse remain
overwhelmingly white and exclude people of colour. I will also show
that, not only does “white anarchism” tend to ostracise people of
colour, its emphasis on image and style leads to the marginalisation of
people with disabilities and those who do not necessarily self-identify
as anarchists despite being vehemently anti-authoritarian. Lastly, the
article takes “Anarchists Against the Wall” as a specific example of the
various flaws inflicting white anarchism, namely, exclusivity, elitism
and the failure to challenge white-colonial privileges adequately.
Despite its eventual defeat, anarchists consider the Spanish revolution
as an inspiring model for anarcho-syndicalism and non-hierarchal
self-governance against all odds; it was a vastly asymmetrical war
against a massive military machine that was supported and armed to the
teeth by fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Nonetheless, no anarchist
model, figure, or landmark is sacred relative to criticism (a virtue
distinguishing anarchism from much of the traditional Left). While it is
an inspiring model, the Spanish revolution was far from a utopia,
afflicted by many flaws and shortcomings. Although it is necessary to
recognise these flaws – including the gross human rights violations
committed by the Republicans, the forced alliance with the bourgeoisie
and the Stalinists, the futile infightings, and other tactical mistakes
– to do so here is beyond the scope of this article. Revolutionaries
often do not have the luxury of choosing their allies. Left with no
other choice, they are many times forced to accept the support of powers
they ideologically oppose. But while recognising that one cannot expect
a revolution to be entirely pure, it by no means condones mass
executions and the clamp-down on religious freedoms. The one strategic
and moral “mistake” that I wish to focus on here is how the issue of
Spanish colonialism in Morocco and Western Sahara went completely and
utterly swept under the blazing flames of revolution back home.
Exceedingly Immersed in their fight against fascism and tyranny in
Spain, the revolutionaries ignored Spain’s colonialism, fascism and
tyranny across the Mediterranean. The level of dehumanisation toward the
“Other” was so high that, according to most pro-revolution narratives,
the only role colonised Moroccans were given to play was one of
mercenaries brought in by General Franco to crush the Popular Front.
Much pro-revolution sentiment would go as far as referring to Moroccans
in a racist manner. While it is difficult to argue that mutual
solidarity between Spanish revolutionaries and colonised Moroccans could
have changed the outcome of the War, it is also difficult to know
whether this kind of solidarity was ever feasible in the first place. As
the late American historian Howard Zinn puts it: “In the short run (and
so far, human history has consisted only of short runs), the victims,
themselves desperate and tainted with the culture that oppresses them,
turn on other victims.” On the other hand, anarchism, in its essence,
means rejecting and fighting against any form of authority and
subjugation, including colonialism and occupation. To be truly
anti-authoritarian, therefore, any struggle against fascism and
dictatorship at home should be internationalist and cannot be separated
from the struggle against fascism and tyranny abroad, in its role as a
colonial power.
Returning to the Spanish revolution is fitting as we mark its 77th
anniversary, because it seems that many anarchists have yet to
internalise one of its key lessons. Exceptions notwithstanding, Western
anarchist movements continue to be overwhelmingly white, unwittingly (or
perhaps knowingly) orientalist, West-centric, even elitist, and
unwelcoming of people who do not look like them. Thus,
anti-authoritarian struggles in the Middle East, Africa and Asia are
usually glossed over. It should be made clear, however, that anarchists
of colour undoubtedly bear a large chunk of the responsibility for their
relative lack of documentation. Maia Ramnath’s excellent book
Decolonizing Anarchism: An Antiauthoritarian History of India’s Liberation Struggle
and Ilham Khury Makdissi’s
The Eastern Mediterranean and the Making of Global Radicalism, 1860-1914,
are among few attempts to offer an alternative history of
anti-authoritarianism in regions that get little attention.
These books provide evidence that anti-authoritarian struggles in
developing countries have existed long before the Black Bloc took to the
streets of Egypt. Anarchism is not a label, a brand or a trademark, and
turning it into a fashion statement does, perhaps, unrivalled damage to
the movement. Anarchism is the unshakable belief, as Alexander Berkman
writes, that “you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss
you, rob you, or impose upon you. It means you should be free to do the
things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what
you do not want to do.” However, the white intellectual obsession with
“-isms” and the tendency to over-conceptualise and place people under
static categories translates into the exclusion of many anarchists
simply because they do not label themselves as such or they do not
“look” anarchist.
[] This is perfectly embodied by the women I met in the July 15 protest
in Beer es-Sab‘. The protest was part of the Palestinian national strike
against the Prawer ethnic cleansing plan
, a bill proposed by the Israeli Knesset that is set to displace
30,000-40,000 Palestinian-Bedouin natives in the Naqab desert;
confiscate 800,000 dunnams of their land; and demolish 35 so-called
“unrecognised” Palestinian villages under the guise of “development.”
Local women led the protest with their chants, blocked the road, and
heroically stood their ground against Israeli occupation cops and
Special Unit Police, who beat them and attacked them with batons.
Fifteen year-old Rouya Hzayel smiled with great dignity when she was
arrested in an iconic image that captured the defiance of Palestinian
women. Following the initial attack by Israeli occupation police against
the protest, demonstrators regrouped and resumed chanting militant
slogans under female leadership. Patriarchal political “leaders” with
masculine energy, those who typically dictate all protests in occupied
Palestine, tried to disperse the protest to avoid further clashes with
the Israeli police. But again, it was the Palestinian-Bedouin women who
refused to go home or be silenced, shouting that the protest must go on
until all detainees are released. Towards the end of the protest, which
was rather small albeit crackling with feminist energy, an elderly
Palestinian woman from Al-Araqib, a Palestinian-Bedouin village
demolished 53 times in the last three years by the Israeli occupation,
said: “When they demolish our homes, we turn the village’s graveyard
into a home. They threaten to destroy it as well. Even if they do, we
will dig graves in our own hands and live in them. We’ll protect our
dead and they’ll protect us.”
In that one protest, the women of the occupied Naqab defied the colonial
authority of the occupying State and the local patriarchal hegemony.
They made a mockery of the orientalist stereotypes that deem Bedouin
women voiceless and lacking agency. They insisted that they were free
and not compelled to do what they did not want to do. Most of these
women may have never heard of Emma Goldman or read Peter Kropotkin’s
pamphlets; some of them can’t speak English. Yet they personified all
that anti-authoritarianism essentially stands for. Nonetheless, these
women and many more like them, will be excluded from the dominant
Western anarchist discourse because they do not fit within the narrow
and complex definitions, labels, and lifestyle.
Another group typically marginalised in many anarchist circles are
persons with disabilities. Persons with a physical disability may not be
able to throw Molotov cocktails or form Black Blocs. They may not be
able to lead an “anarchist” lifestyle or discard civilisation because
their functioning lives heavily rely on modern technology. That does not
mean they cannot be anti-authoritarian like any other able-bodied
person. It means that they have particular circumstances and needs that
must be respected and integrated within the movement. They can organise
direct actions, participate in sit-ins, lead civil disobedience, and
turn their disability into an attribute and an advantage for the entire
group. They should not be patronised or marginalised. Instead of telling
them to go home or remain at the back, their comrades should put forth
an effort to make the protest space accessible for them when possible.
People with physical disabilities are usually excluded from anarchist
movements or don’t feel welcome and embraced. But for anarchism to be
truly inclusive and heterogeneous, it must integrate and embrace all:
people of colour, people with disability, the poor, the unaffiliated
rebels, and those who do not necessarily fit within the readily-accepted
Western definitions of anarchism, as we learned with the example in the
Naqab above.
Widely praised and acclaimed as the most radical and revolutionary
Israeli leftist group, Anarchists Against the Wall (AATW) perfectly
exemplifies many of the aforementioned failures and shortcomings of
“white anarchism.” We may stand on the same side politically, since
members of AATW oppose Zionism, support the right of return for
Palestinian refugees, and believe in one democratic country in Historic
Palestine. However, most of them have not critically come to terms with
the reality of their white colonial privileges. This critique does not
aim to evaluate or underestimate the group’s work rate or commitment,
nor does it question their moral courage and stamina. Rather, it aims to
shed light on failures and shortcomings shared by most radical leftist
white groups. This critique of AATW is twofold: (1) on an institutional
level and (2) in questioning the group’s participation in protests in
the occupied West Bank.
Anarchists Against the Wall is a group strongly dominated by white,
bourgeois, educated, and privileged Ashkinazi Israelis from the Tel Aviv
bubble. It is a closed VIP club that does not apply direct democracy.
Several activists who worked closely with the group complained that
decisions are taken by a select few veteran members. They always
emphasise that they “check their privileges” but they do not recognise
that their privileges permeate their daily lives, allowing for them
broader choices from how to move to where they live. For instance,
taking the apartheid, settler-only 433 Road from Tel Aviv en route to a
protest in the West Bank is neither revolutionary, nor does it defy the
Israeli privilege. Going back from Ramallah to Jerusalem through the
Hizmeh checkpoint, a special checkpoint for people with Israeli
citizenship, is not revolutionary either. Travelling to protests in the
West Bank to soothe their white saviour complex does not quite mix with
“checking your privilege.” Going every Friday to the “cool” and liberal
protests of Nabi Saleh and spending most of the day chatting in Hebrew
near the gas station under clouds of tear gas seems counter-productive.
Israeli anarchists believe that their very presence is charitable to the
villages and benefits the protest, as if their white skins and Israeli
IDs are crowning attributes in and of themselves. But even this is not
really true. The village with the largest protest turnout in the West
Bank is Kafr Qaddoum, and barely five Israeli activists attend its
weekly protests. The claim that the presence of Israeli anarchists
protects local Palestinian demonstrators is also preposterous as
Palestinians are the ones who are always on the front lines, and the
presence of Israeli activists does not make Israeli occupation forces
any less violent. Thanks to their citizenship, Israeli anarchists are
privileged over Palestinians by law, even when arrested or when injured
which means that the whole “co-resistance” mantra is a farce. At the end
of the day, and after dodging few bullets, smelling tear-gas and skunk
spray and taking some dramatic pictures, Israeli anarchists go back to
the colony of Tel Aviv, at times through Jewish-only roads, they get to
spend a good night out in a bar. Meanwhile, Palestinian villagers with
whom they “co-resist” every Friday are always under the looming threat
of night raids and retaliation by Israeli occupation soldiers.
Israeli anarchists need to understand that taking part in protests in
the West Bank in their current form does not threaten the system. Truly
rejecting their privileges would entail subjecting themselves to the
life and death of the colonised. That is, it would entail actions on
their part that would make the coloniser incapable of differentiating
between them and Palestinian villagers with whom they “co-resist.”
Moreover, it would also entail dismantling their privilege within their
own communities. Even before attending any protest in the West Bank,
they should first recognise and work to dismantle the system of
privilege where they live; strive to make change in their own
communities; fight the long and invisible battles that do not get filmed
on YouTube; and get rid of their White Man’s Burden. Palestinians are
better off without it. Until then, they will remain part and parcel of
the system that oppresses, colonises and suffocates Palestinians. They
will remain so because their lives as they live them continue to depend
on that very system.