The European Left and Venezuela

“I have been following the Bolivarian Revolution from its beginning with critical attention and solidarity,” writes renown Portuguese scholar Boaventura de Souza. He continues: “Last May 26, I signed a manifesto prepared by Venezuelan intellectuals and politicians of various political tendencies and addressed to the parties and social groups engaged in confrontation asking them to stop street violence and start a discussion with a view to finding a non violent, democratic outcome without US interference.

After that, I decided I would not again speak about the Venezuelan crisis. Why do I do it today? Because I am shocked at the partiality of European media, including the Portuguese media, a bias resorting to all kinds of means to demonize a legitimately elected government, ignite the social and political fire and sanction foreign intervention of unforeseen consequences.”

There is a big contrast with the eighties when the European left had organized broad solidarity work with the revolutions in Central America. Now they are so intimidated by the capitalist press that they don’t even dare to speak out against the US-led campaign against the Bolivarian revolution. Boaventura de Souza is an example of that courage of the left, that is now lost in the 21st century.

Read the full text of his declaration on Venezuela and the Western media here.

A decolonial approach to color

 

Sandew Hira, July 22, 2017

 

The best way to develop decolonial theory is through discussing its application in real life situations.

Take the following situation from a Summer School. The Summer School attracts activists and academic across the world. The participants are from all part of the world: Europe, USA, Latin America, the Caribbean, India, South Africa etc.

There are white people and people of color, academics and activists.

Obviously in such a space you will have a reproduction of debates and approaches that exists in social movements across the world.

The purpose of the Summer School to exchange knowledge and engage in critical discussion on decolonial theory and practice.

A professor of color who is an expert on Frantz Fanon and his contribution to decolonial teaching invited participants to make a contribution based on their knowledge, experiences and expression. They could sing, recite a poems or share a story. One day a black South African participant shared her story. The next day a white South African participant shared her story. A black participant from the USA objected to her sharing her story because she was white and her story was an example of white saviour. The space of the Summer School should be limited to people of color. The white South African should have been silenced because there white saviour should not be tolerated.

I will use this incident to discuss to questions:

  • How do we deal with racism and color from a theoretical perspective.
  • How to we deal with racism and color from the perspective building social movements in the struggle against racism?

Racism, color and theory

In the lecture on a DTM (Decolonizing The Mind) theory of racism I explained our concept of racism. It is based on four propositions:

  1. Racism is institutional, not individual. It is based on institutions (economic, political, social, cultural, technological) that operate on a global scale and that shape individual experiences.
  2. Racism organizes human relations through these institutions along the lines of inferiority and superiority of communities, not of individuals.
  3. Historically the markers for organizing these relation have been and are religion (theological racism), race (biological racism) and culture (cultural racism). Islamophobia is a form of cultural racism.
  4. Racism was established and is maintained though various mechanisms in the different dimensions (division of labour in economics, violence and intimidation in politics). The colonizing of the mind of the colonizer and the colonized are important mechanisms in the cultural dimension.

 

So color is one of the different instruments in organizing communities along the lines of inferiority and superiority. Furthermore, the colonization of the mind means two things:

  • It shapes knowledge, attitude and skills of both the colonizer and the colonized.
  • It detaches the content of the markers of racism from its form (religion, skin color, culture). So on an individual level a black person can be colonized in his or her mind and a white person can be decolonized in his or her mind. The colonization of the mind means that (s)he reproduces the colonial knowledge.

So if a white South African women speaks in the Summer School we see her as part of a community that has institutionalized racism in South Africa, but on an individual level we still have to judge her in relation to her contribution to or struggle against these institutions. We don’t judge her on the basis of the color of her skin, but on the content of her arguments and her actions.

On these theoretical grounds I object to silencing her from sharing her experiences.

An argument for shutting her down is based on the theory of white privilege. This theory was invented by white liberals and has gained ground in activists of color. I have provided a decolonial critique of the concept of white privilege here: https://www.din.today/the-theory-of-white-privilege-why-racism-is-not-a-privilege/.

The argument for shutting her down is that white people are privileged and that they should listen rather than talk. I argue that racism is not an individual privilege, but an institutional injustice. So I judge the white individual on the basis of his or her contribution to or struggle against these institutional injustice, that is why she should not be shut down, but encourage to speak out so we can make this judgment rather that accepting that she can not make a contribution by definition.

In conclusion: from a decolonial perspective we judge a person not by definition, by but practice, not by belonging to an oppressive community by definition, but by judging their contribution to or struggle against this oppression.

The theory of white privilege can not deal with these questions.

Racism, color and social movements

There are practical and political reasons why I object to excluding the white South African participants for sharing her experiences in the Summer School.

We all come from social movements that are engaged in daily struggles against racism and the global colonial institutions. In these movements we help create different spaces with different purposes.

For example, we argue in Europe that we need organizations of people of color whose main purpose is to organize and empower the communities of color. We urge sympathetic white activists not to join our movement, but to go and engage in white organizations and bring the anti-racist struggle there. There is no place in our organizations for white people in organizing people of color. There is another space we create outside our organization where we work together in combining forces and devising strategies and tactics against institutional racism.

The decolonial movement in the global South might be organized in a total different way. There are many spaces possible.

The organizers of the Summer School have created a space in which academics and activists from different parts of the world and different ethnicities are invited and accepted to engage in critical discussion on decolonial theory and practice. Everybody has the right to express and share their views in this space and the organizers should ensure that this freedom of expression is guaranteed. It is rude and disrespectful towards the organizers if participants demand that th eyclose the space they have created for some participants and open it exclusively for other participants.

If we are in a space that someone else has created we will respect their rules and regulations as a matter of principal of decolonial ethics. We will not impose our rules on the people or organization who have created the space which we enter.

So from a practical and ethical point of view we can not accept shutting down a participant from sharing her views on the basis of her skin color or on the basis of her opinions. Her opinions should be heard and discussion like the opinion of anyone else.

There is also a political argument for creating the space in the way the organizers are doing. The Summer Schools are spaces where people are encouraged to engage in practical political work.  In the struggle against institutional racism the question of white allies is a crucial question. From our political philosophy we need to organize white allies in the struggle against institutional racism. Therefore we encourage white people to engages in political discussion and speak out so we can just their views and actions in the light of how the contribute or obstruct our struggle.

DIN on Facebook

Decolonial International Network is now active on Facebook! Join us online to get daily updates on decolonial projects and events by DIN partners. We’ll also share articles and publications by affiliated members of DIN. If you have interesting content you want to share with our network, feel free to contact us. Click here to like and follow us on Facebook.

FB Banner DIN

 

Stop bashing Houria Bouteldja and the PIR!

The French daily, Le Figaro, started a series of articles aimed at criminalizing the Parti des Indigènes de la République (PIR) and its leader Houria Bouteldja. The PIR is a member of the Decolonial International Network. They are portrayed as racist, homophobic and anti-semitic.

They create an atmosphere of hate around Houria Bouteldja and the PIR. Progressive activists and intellectuals have rallied against this attempt by Figaro to criminalize Bouteldja and the PIR. The attack against the PIR is a typical example of the rise of the police state in Europe.

Freedom of speech under attack in the UK

On Sunday June 18th 2017 the Quds Committee in the UK organized the annual Al Quds Day. Al Quds Day is an international event to protest the Zionist occupation of Palestine and is held on the last Friday of Ramadan. For years this event has been organized in Britain and every year it attracts the criticism of Zionist forces. This year a particular vicious campaign was waged against the organizing committee by the Zionist Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.

They pressured the mayor of London Sadiq Khan to ban the event. His office bowed to the pressure and supported the call. The Zionists thanked him: “Both the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime have been very helpful in facilitating contact with the right people within the Metropolitan Police Service, and we are grateful to them for their efforts.”

But the London Police stood by the freedom of expression and allowed the event to continue.

Meanwhile Islamophobic pundits created a climate of hate around the event. Majid Nawaaz, the director of the Quilliam Foundation and LBC radio presenter, along with some niche media attacked the organizers, claiming they were terrorist sympathisers, and even focused on the Islamic Human Right Commission (IHRC), a member of the Decolonial International Network. IHRC has ledged several complaints with the BBC, LBC, and various press and media regulators, as well as the police, after this year’s campaign against Al-Quds Day.

The night of 18th June after the event, a white terrorist Darren Osborn, drove his van into a crowd of Muslims at a mosque in North London killing one and injuring eight people. It has been reported that his original plan was to attack the crowd at the Al Quds Day march.

The attack on the Al Quds Day failed, but it showed the concerted effort of Zionists, Islamophobic and terrorist forces to clamp down on the freedom of speech.

The theory of everyday racism: which racism is not everyday, but only in the weekend?

Sandew Hira, June 7, 2017

Introduction

In previous contributions I offered an analysis of two theories of liberalism that are popular among anti-racist activists: one on intersectionality and its application in decolonizing the university and one on the concept of white privilege. This article takes a critical look at another popular theory of liberalism: the theory of everyday racism. This theory was developed by Philomena Essed.[1]

Neglecting the tradition of black thought

There is a rich tradition of decolonial thought that has looked into many aspects of racism. Moreover, there is a wide range of black thinkers from Africa, the Caribbean and the Americas that have developed concepts about how racism impacts the daily life of blacks. There is an oral tradition that have produced icons like Bob Marley who explains how to emancipate from mental slavery.

There is a huge literature by black thinkers on the mechanisms of racist institutions and practices that impacts the daily life of blacks and many have of them have now an iconic status. Their analysis is used by radical anti-racist activists today. From Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman to Marcus Garvey, Frantz Fanon, Malcolm X and millions of black activists across the African Diaspora. They have made contributions on how black lives are shaped by racism every second of the day.

Essed just shoves these contributions away and repeatedly claims that she is doing something unique (my emphasis in bold): “This study examines crucial, but largely neglected, dimensions of racism: How is racism experienced in everyday situations? How do Blacks recognize covert expressions of racism? What knowledge of racism do Blacks have, and how is this knowledge acquired?”[2]

Many studies have identified the mechanisms of racism at a societal level, but few have revealed its pervasive impact on the daily experiences of Blacks.”[3]

“The lack of intellectual interest in micro manifestations and experiences may also be due to intellectual bias against the “ordinary” and the underrating of the insights of “laypersons.” It is not surprising that so few people have engaged in systematic analyses of how racism permeates everyday life.”[4]

Institutional racism

Apparently she is unaware of all the studies by major black thinkers that have dealt extensively with how racism has impacted the daily lives of black people. Just to name a few.

  • Marcus Garvey and his million-members Universal Negro Improvement Association had weekly meetings, newspapers, 1,000 branches. What did they discuss, if it was not everyday racism? Their daily experience was the basis of their analysis of racism and reported in their speeches and articles.
  • Frantz Fanon analyzed the mechanism of racism in the daily lives of black people: the superiority complex of whites and the inferiority complex of blacks; the use of language and culture, the role of gender and sexuality, the link to colonialism.
  • Aimé Césaire has explained in detail how the French policy of assimilation impacted the everyday life of blacks in Martinique and how Pan-Africanist thinkers developed the concept of negritude to combat racism.
  • The powerful speeches of Malcolm X covers many themes of how racism impacted the daily lives of blacks, from the speech on “who taught you to hate yourself” to the speech on how the press turns the victim into a perpetrator of racism and vice verse.

Essed is ignorant about these contributions. Even from a Eurocentric methodology you would expect that someone who claims to develop a new theory of racism would discuss what others have already done in this field. Not Essed. She just claims that hardly anyone before her paid attention to the daily experience of black people with racism and ignores other contributions from black thinkers.

The different contributions of black thinkers culminated in the concept of institutional racism. Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) and Charles Hamilton articulated this concept.[5] In the very definition of racism they take the daily experience of black people into account (my emphasis in bold): “What is racism?  The word has represented daily reality to millions of black people for centuries, yet it is rarely defined—perhaps just because that reality has been such a commonplace.  By “racism” we mean the predication of decisions and policies on considerations of race for the purpose of subordinating a racial group and maintaining control over that group.”[6]

They don’t talk not about abstract sociological concepts. They link the daily reality of black people with institutional racism. They explain that whites think of racism in terms of overt and covert, but blacks puts the white covert concept in the context of institutional racism: “Racism is both overt and covert.  It takes two, closely related forms:  individual whites acting against individual blacks, and acts by the total white community against the black community.  We call these individual racism and institutional racism.  The first consists of overt acts by individuals, which cause death, injury or the violent destruction of property.  This type can be recorded by television cameras; it can frequently be observed in the process of commission. The second type is less overt, far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts.  But it is no less destructive of human life.  The second type originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than the first type.”[7]

They provide an example to explain the difference between individual (overt) and institutional (covert) racism: “When white terrorists bomb a black church and kill five black children, that is an act of individual racism, widely deplored by most segments of the society.  But when in the same city—Birmingham, Alabama—five hundred black babies die each year because of the lack of proper food, shelter and medical facilities, and thousands more are destroyed and maimed physically, emotionally and intellectually because conditions of poverty and discrimination  in the black community, that is a function of institutional racism.  When a black family moves into a home in a white neighbourhood and is stoned, burned or routed out, they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which many people will condemn at least in words.  But it is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents.  The [SH: white] society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it.”[8]

Carmichael and Hamilton clarify how institutional racism operates in the daily practices and attitudes of whites: “Institutional racism relies on the active and pervasive operation of anti-black attitudes and practices.  A sense of superior group position prevails: whites are “better” than blacks; therefore blacks should be subordinated to whites. This is a racist attitude and it permeates the society, on both the individual and institutional level, covertly and overtly. “Respectable” individuals  can absolve themselves from individual blame:  they would never plant a bomb in a church; they would never stone a black family.  But they continue to support political officials and institutions that would and do perpetuate institutionally racist policies.  Thus acts of overt, individual racism may not typify the society, but institutional racism does—with the support of covert, individual attitudes of racism.”[9]

The analysis of Carmichael and Hamilton was not part of an academic thesis to get a degree at a Westernized university. It was an analysis for activists who were deeply involved in the struggle against racism. They articulated the relationship between institutional racism and how this shaped the life of blacks and the attitudes of whites. The social movements of which they are part have thousands of stories of how institutional racism impacts the daily lives of black people. It has been documented in books and articles, in songs and marches. Now comes an academic writing a dissertation who claims that nobody before her engaged in this type of thinking. It is amazing how arrogance can be presented as science.

Carmichael and Hamilton make a profound link between institutional racism and colonialism. They write: “Institutional racism has another name: colonialism.”[10]

They explain: “One normally associates a colony with a land and a people subjected to, and physically separated from, the “Mother Country.”  This is not always the case, however;  in South African and Rhodesia, black and white inhabit the same land—with blacks subordinated to whites just as in the English, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish colonies.  It is the objective relationship which counts, not rhetoric (such as constitutionally articulating equal rights) or geographyBlack people in the United States have a colonial relationship to the larger society, a relationship characterized by institutional racism.”[11]

Everyday racism and colonialism

The theories of black activists on racism is based on the experiences of millions of black people – and colonized people in general – for the past five hundred years. Where does Essed based her theory of everyday racism on? She interviewed 55 black women. Essed: “Two similar groups of women were interviewed: 27 in the US and 28 in the Netherlands. The selection was based on three criteria, of which the first was used most frequently: 1) references by interviewees, 2) references through my personal contacts and 3) and references through my professional contacts. Thus, diversity was obtained in different ways… Interviewees were requested to refer to other black women between 20 en 45… About one-third of each group are students and the rest are professionals. The level of education of the black American professionals is M.A. to Ph.D…. The level of education of the interviewed professionals in the Netherlands is slightly lower than the Americans; their degrees are comparable to BA and MA.”[12]

What are the results if this is her basis to develop a new theory? She don’t understand the root of racism: colonialism. This is her understanding of colonialism: “In order to understand the impact of colonization on the development of knowledge of racism it is relevant to take into consideration at least the following factors. First, colonization is characterized by ideological domination.”[13]

No, it is not. Colonialism is characterized by brutal occupation of land, genocide of indigenous people, massive enslavement of millions of Africans and other crimes against humanity. The ideology followed the practice, not the other way round.

Essed: “The colonizers present themselves as a positive identification model and ignore the relation between colonialism and racism.”[14]

Not at all. She does not know basic historical facts about colonialism. The colonizer did not present himself as a positive identification model. There was no need for it. Enslavement meant that black human beings were regarded as cattle. They were bought and sold. They were not free men and women who could emulate the example of the white model of human being. They were registered in the bookkeeping of the whites along with the pigs and the chickens as cattle. What books did Essed read about colonialism? Surely not the book by black activists on colonialism.

Essed: “Second, the majority of the colonized population has little or no experience with whites on a level of day-to-day interaction.”[15]

On the contrary. Every morning the enslaved blacks were summoned for the morning report where the whites told them who would be flogged as punishment for disobedience of the previous day. They would hear from the whites what their tasks of the day would be. During their work whites were present with a whip and a gun to ensure that they would work without pay. Blacks were doing the cooking and cleaning of their house. The blacks had massive experience with whites on a daily basis during colonialism. How is it possible that Essed does not know these basis facts?

Essed is from the former Dutch colony in Latin America: Suriname. Slavery was legally abolished in 1863. In 1948 Suriname achieve a limited form of self-rule, where the people could elect a government, but a governor from Holland was the head of the colony. The white elite was replaced by a light-skinned elite. Suriname became independent in 1975. Many Surinamese migrated to Holland in the sixties and seventies of the 20th century.

Essed: “Third, it appears that the experiences in the Netherlands, after migration, contradict previous expectations blacks had about life in the Netherlands. Fourth, it follows from these factors that blacks when they arrive in the Netherlands, are not ready to deal effectively with racist situations.”[16]

Here is a curious argument of Essed that shows her limited understanding of racism. What is the origin of racism? It is in the interaction between black and white. If there is no interaction, then there is no racism. Because most people from the white elite had left Suriname, there was no daily interaction between whites and blacks. In her theory this means that blacks in Suriname did not know what racism was, because that knowledge is derived from the experience of interaction. Only when they migrated to Holland they got to know racism but were “not ready to deal effectively with racist situations.”

Like in other Caribbean countries Suriname also had a black nationalist movement after 1948 that had produced ideas about racism and colonialism. Based on their daily experience in Suriname they argued that racism existed in the superiority-inferiority complex that shaped the attitude and behaviours of blacks. Racism was in the educational system that promoted the concept of white superiority. It was in the culture that saw black as inferior. It was in the language policy that prohibited blacks to speak their own language and use Dutch instead. It was there in thousands of acts in the daily lives of the people. There was no need for a day-to-day interaction with whites for this system of racism to be in place.

In Europe in the nineteenth centuries there were hardly any blacks, yet racist theories were devised in that period and influenced policies of governments. Essed’s theory of racism can not deal with these crucial pillars of racism.

The new theory of everyday racism

Essed’s claims to develop a new general theory of racism. She does not claim to have developed a new theory for racism in the USA or the Netherlands) in the late 20th century. Her ambitious claim is that she has developed a new general theory on racism. Hj

“The central place of experience in my approach to racism suggests an agenda for another kind of research,” writes Essed.[17] “It is my aim to demonstrate that the concept of everyday racism has a more general relevance in race relations theory.”[18] She claims to “presents a new approach to the study of racism based on the concept of ‘everyday racism’.”[19]

It is a general theory of racism that can help us understand the phenomenon of racism in general, which means racism in its historical development, from the enslavement of Africans in the Americas to the Apartheid system in South Africa. She does not limit her claim to a specific historical period or country. If she would, then obviously she would ran into trouble. If you say this theory holds for racism in the USA and the Netherlands in the period 1970-1980 for 58 black women, nobody would even take the effort to look at it. So she must declare it to be a general theory. But then you don’t need to be a genius to see the nonsense in talking about everyday racism during slavery in the USA or Apartheid in South Africa.

In order to make a case for the uniqueness of her concept of everyday racism Essed makes a caricature of the concept of institutional racism.

Essed’s main critique of institutional racism is this: “Many studies that implemented racial oppression as institutional discrimination are problematic because they ignored the role of ideology in the structuring of discrimination… most of these studies also have the usual problems of macrosociology. Manifestations of contemporary racism have not been studied in detail in a systematic, theoretical, and analytical way.”[20] She continues: “One major thesis of this study is that the traditional distinction between institutional and individual racism is misleading and insufficient to explain the (re)production of racial inequality in society.” [21]

The studies by black activist definitely deals with the role of ideology. Just read Garvey, Fanon, Césaire of Malcolm X. They don’t talk about macrosociology. But then, she does not take these black thinkers into account when she developed her new theory.

Essed does not understand the theory of institutional racism. Carmichael and Hamilton explained the concept of covert racism. It is “covert” for whites. Carmichael and Hamilton write: “This is a racist attitude and it permeates the society, on both the individual and institutional level, covertly and overtly. “Respectable” individuals  can absolve themselves from individual blame:  they would never plant a bomb in a church; they would never stone a black family.  But they continue to support political officials and institutions that would and do perpetuate institutionally racist policies.  Thus acts of overt, individual racism may not typify the society, but institutional racism does—with the support of covert, individual attitudes of racism.”[22]

They are referring to white people who would never plant a bomb in a church. They are not talking about black people when they talk about covert racism, because every black person experiences racism. For them every racism is always overt and naked.

Covert racism is not an object that needs to be discovered. It is a state of mind of white people who are in denial of their racism. But Essed uses this concept as a object of knowledge, something that need to be discovered … by black people. That is why her research question is formulated in those terms: “How is racism experienced in everyday situations? How do Blacks recognize covert expressions of racism? What knowledge of racism do Blacks have, and how is this knowledge acquired?”[23]

The methodology of everyday racism

Taking the Eurocentric positivist tradition as her methodology Essed develops a method to detect racism based on individual experiences, not on collective experiences. Collective experience brings you to institutional racism, because a collective is already an institution. Eurocentric liberalism takes the individual as the actor in social processes. Eurocentric Marxism takes class as the actor. Essed is grounded in the Eurocentric liberal tradition of individualism.

She writes: “Individuals are actors in a power structure. Power can be used to reproduce racism, but it can also be used to combat racism. This study shows how power, operative in everyday situations, perpetuates racial and ethnic oppression. Note, however, that I focus on racist practices, not on individuals. To talk about ‘to be or not to be a racist’ simplifies the problem. Although individuals are the agents of ,racism, my concern is practices and their implications, not the psyche of these individuals.”[24]

Apparently power has no colour in Essed’s theory of everyday racism. This is a naïve view of power in racist societies There is no white power, just a neutral power in general that can reproduce racism, but it also can combat racism. Which power is that schizophrenic that is both reproducing and combating racism? The theory of institutional racism holds that power has a colour. White power exists. And white power does not combat racism. Black social movements build power, sometimes in alliance with whites.

Essed says that she focuses on practices, not on individuals, but she means practices of individuals. She shows that by declaring that she is not interested in the psyche of these individual but in their practices. Here whole research is about interpreting the individual experiences of the 58 women.

There is no discussion about institutions that produce and perpetuates racism: economic, social, political or cultural institutions. It is all based on the interpretation of individual experiences.

She has even developed a procedure for the assessment of the individual experiences. Essed: “The comprehension of racist acts was defined as the ability to explain specific experiences in terms of situational knowledge and in terms of general knowledge of racism. The comprehension of racism in everyday situations can be conceptualized as a ‘strategic’ process following a specific sequence.”[25]

The sequence consists of five steps in detecting whether a specific experience can be labelled as racist:

Step 1: Acceptable or not?

Step 2: Acceptable excuses for unacceptable behaviour?

Step 3: It is because I am black?

Step 4: Is the specific event excusable?

Step 5: Is the event socially significant?

An event could be something like this: “S19, aged 43, recalls an occasion in a Dutch shop when she was obtrusively being watched by one of the saleswomen.”[26]

Or: “C28, aged 21, has problems with learning French. She is the only black student in class. Her difficulties with the language are much increased when her French TA (teaching assistant) appears very impatient with her. The situation grows worse with each lesson, until one time C28 has become so nervous that she cannot quite understand a specific question addressed to her in French and subsequently responds quite of line. The TA gets at her.”[27]

These are examples of everyday racism. It is about experiences that any black person can have on any given day. That is why it is called everyday racism.

You won’t find an example like this: Trayvon Martin had visited his father’s fiancée at her townhouse at The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford. On the evening of Sunday February 26, Martin was walking back alone to the fiancee’s house after purchasing some items at a convenience store. He was followed by George Zimmerman, a neighbourhood watch volunteer. Zimmerman shot the unarmed Martin dead after an argument.

How does the theory of everyday racism deal with this event? To be fair, it happened in a weekend and not everyday, so maybe it is not everyday racism but weekend racism. Posing questions like “is it acceptable, excusable, significant” in the case of Travon Martin would make you look like a fool, at least with people who have an anti-racist consciousness. In order to comprehend this, you need to understand how the institution of police violence operates in a racist society. Everyday racism brings you nowhere.

Implications for social struggle

There are major differences between the theory of everyday racism and the theory of institutional racism for the struggle against racism.

Institutional racism focuses on the institutions that produce and perpetuates racism: economic, social, political or cultural institutions. It identifies these institutions, analyses the way it works and devises strategies to bring them down or change them.

Institutional racism addresses the question of power. White power is embedded in the above mentioned institutions. To confront white power institutional racism tackles the question of black power. How to empower black people, how to fight mental slavery, how to organize black people to build economic and political power in social movements and confront white power.

Institutional racism links the struggle against racism to the struggle to decolonize the world. Racism is framed in the context of colonialism and its legacy.

Everyday racism takes the individual experience as the basis for its analysis. Therefore it limits its policy towards individuals and does not address the problem of institutional racism, white power and black empowerment. Its main focus is convincing white people to open their eyes for covert racism and acknowledge that it is there. Its strategy is to promoting non-racist interaction between individuals.

Essed provides a list of problems that need to be tackled.

Here is the list[28]. As you can see the overwhelming majority addresses white people and what they need to do to change their attitude. It is not about black empowerment and how to build power to forces changes.

 

MARGINALIZATION

  1. Cognitive detachment

– withdrawing altogether

– lack of responsibility for race relations

– Ignoring the problem of racism

  1. Whitecentrism

– Whites as the norm group

– Passive tolerance

– Tokenism

– To define one black as the good exception

  1. Obstacles impeding equal participation

– Barring

– Avoiding or withdrawing from social contact

– Ignoring

– Failing to facilitate black participation

– Discouragement

– Not acknowledging contributions/qualification

– Inflexibility/additional requirements

– To give less/secondary facilities

– Excluding from position of authority

– Reserving menial work for blacks

– To lower the standards

– To withhold relevant information

– Deception

– To fire

 

PROBLEMATIZATION

  1. Denigration of perspective/personality

– To attribute unreliability

– Attributing oversensitivity

– To pathologize

  1. Cultural denigration

– To define as uncivilized

– To define or treat as backward

– To attribute Happy-go-lucky mentality

– To attribute language deficiency

– To attribute laziness

– To attribute insensitivity

  1. Biological/cultural denigration

– Criminalization

– Underestimation

– To define as overly fertile

  1. Biological denigration

– Race purism

– To attribute sexual pathology

 

CONTAINMENT

  1. Denial of racism

– Failing to take a stand against racism

– Reluctance to deal with racism

– Refusing to admit racism

– Anger against blacks who point out racism

– Over-friendliness

– Claiming to mean well

– Self-pity/backlash

– Pveremphhasizing black against black conflict

– Acknowledging only extreme racism

  1. Management of ethnic difference

– Overemphasis on difference

– Majority rule

– Ethnization of jobs/tasks

– Cultural non-recognition’

– Rejection of ‘ethnic’ behavior

– Mistrusting/unity among blacks

– Fragmentation

– Ethnic registration

  1. Pacification

– Patronizing

– Expressing gratitude

– To keep close control

– To give pity/charity

– Creating/reinforcing dependence

  1. Denial of dignity

– Humiliation

– Belittlement

  1. Intimidation

-Physical violence

– Sexual harassment

– Petty harassment

– Rudeness

– Ridicule/jokers/racist talk

– Name calling and verbal threats

– Authoritarian behavior

  1. Retaliation

– Resentment

– Opposing/punishing assertiveness

– Other

The theory of everyday racism presents itself as a new analysis of racism. In fact, it is an old analysis that has been propagated since the days of slavery by black people who are colonized in their mind and have learned to wait for the white men and women to acknowledge their everyday racism in order to change society.

[1] First in her dissertation: Essed, Ph. (1989): Understanding everyday racism. An interdisciplinary theory and analysis of the experiences of black women. Diss. University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam. Later she developed it further in: Essed, Ph. (1991): Understanding Everyday Racism. An Interdisciplinary Theory. Sage Publications. Newbury Park.

[2] Essed, Ph. (1991), p. vii.

[3] Idem, p. 1.

[4] Idem, p. 8.

[5] Carmichael, S. and Hamilton, Ch. (1967): Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. Vintage Books. New York.

[6] Idem, p. 3-4.

[7] Idem, p. 4.

[8] Idem.

[9] Idem, p. 5.

[10] Carmichael, S. and Hamilton, Ch. (1967), p. 5.

[11] Idem, p. 6.

[12] Essed, Ph. (1989), p. 48-49.

[13] Essed, Ph. (1989), p. 69.

[14] Idem.

[15] Idem.

[16] Idem.

[17] Essed, Ph. (1991), p. 294.

[18] Idem, p. 2.

[19] Idem, p. vii.

[20] Idem, p. 7.

[21] Idem, p. 288.

[22] Idem, p. 5.

[23] Essed, Ph. (1991), p. vii.

[24] Idem, p. viii.

[25] Essed, Ph. (1989), p. 60-61.

[26] Idem, p. 65.

[27] Idem, p. 64.

[28] Idem, p. 133a-b.

What is really happening in Venezuela

Alvaro Sanchez Cordero, Charge D’Affaires from the Embassy of Venezuela to the Netherlands

 

Introduction

Since early April of this year, Venezuelans have been suffering the consequences of violent street protests, resulting in more than 60 deaths and hundreds more injured. We are deeply sorry for the death of so many people, both civilians and law enforcement agents. Media reporting on this situation, however, has been strongly biased, with news outlets falsely depicting Venezuela as a country at war, where peaceful protesters are violently knocked down by a dictatorial government. The real story is different.

Background

In 1999, when a progressive revolution came to power in Venezuela and President Chavez was elected, a whole new vision for the country was put in place. The vast majority of Venezuelans, who had hitherto been ostracized, depoliticized, disenfranchised, exploited, socially excluded and discriminated against, were finally included and empowered into a new democratic model that was both representative and participatory. The net result was a new sovereign nation in full control of its natural resources, with a new Constitution, and a leadership able to equally distribute oil revenues in a more fair and efficient manner that ultimately produced highly positive social and human results, such as: four million people lifted out of poverty, free and universal access to medical health and education, the eradication of illiteracy, access to potable water, three million pensioners and almost two million social houses, among other achievements.

Of course, such progress came with a price tag. The US Government, intensely hostile to Venezuela’s socialist government controlling its own oil (Venezuela has the largest oil reserve in the world), has been very active destabilizing with the ultimate aim to topple our Government for the past 18 years. Though the list is practically endless, the US has tried every dirty trick in the book. They have given full financial backing and open political support to the Venezuelan right-wing opposition’s violent and unconstitutional efforts to oust the democratically elected government such as, a coup d’état, an oil and business lock-out, street barricades and hiring mercenaries and paramilitaries to perpetrate widespread terror, among others.

A new situation

This is the context of the opposition-led violence that we see in Venezuela right now but with some important additions. Firstly, Chavez is no longer with us. This has energized the US into believing they now have better chances to succeed. Secondly, the current wave of destabilizing violence has been more effective because it is combined with a vicious economic war – reminiscent of what was to Allende in Chile in the 1970s – which includes blocking international credit, disrupting distribution of food supplies and other essential items and speculating with a fictitious, black-market, exchange rate that has brought major economic difficulties and that, as intended, has hit the poorest sections of society generating discontent. Thus, on the back of these deliberately created economic difficulties, in December 2015 the opposition won majority in Parliament. Nonetheless, instead of building politically upon such victory, they decided to take a short cut by promising to bring down President Maduro, one way or another. In six months, the opposition-led Parliament, used its majority to foment violence, even to the point that current Parliament President, Julio Borges, openly called the military to rise up against the constitutional government.

Yet, throughout 2016, the opposition failed to oust the government of President Maduro, as they had promised, despite the fact that they escalated the US-supported economic war.

This failure in the domestic terrain led them to try it from the outside, but whose crucial domestic component was the current wave of violence to justify US-led external intervention.

Peaceful protest?

Protestors marching against the democratically elected government of Nicolas Maduro are very often far from peaceful and come equipped with home-made weapons, Molotov cocktails, bazookas, ammunitions, explosives, stones as well as firearms, which they use against the forces of law and order. Opposition demonstrators have set government buildings on fire, vandalized public and private property, looted stores and have even perpetrated attacks on two maternity hospitals during which they tried to set them on fire. There was a severe risk that 54 babies may die as a consequence; mothers in labour, nurses, doctors and patients needed to be evacuated. There was no reporting on these events in the mainstream media as it clearly contradicts their narrative. A few weeks ago some of the most violent opposition demonstrators started to throw human and animal excrements at the forces of law and order. There is no need to mention the danger of all kinds of diseases erupting in a tropical climate with streets full of excrements and in a delicate health situation due to the increased appearance of the Zika virus. Only a few weeks ago Venezuelan opposition supporters attacked Venezuela’s Diplomatic Mission in Spain, asking publicly on social media for Venezuelan ambassadors to end up like the former Russian Ambassador in Turkey, Andrei Karlov, who was assassinated in Ankara last year. In fact, also a few weeks ago, our Consulate in Bonaire was attacked by sympathizers of the Venezuelan opposition who unlawfully entered the premises of the diplomatic mission and vandalized equipment and materials, in clear violation of international law. Unfortunately, similar incidents have also taken place in many other Venezuelan diplomatic missions worldwide.

Political prisoners?

People have been arrested because they have committed criminal acts, causing violence in the streets leading to the death of dozens of people and putting many lives at risk, not because of their political position. The same would hold true in any European country. Think about the Dutch Constitution, and the resulting Public Assemblies Act. Both state that the right to assembly and demonstration in the Netherlands may be restricted in order “to protect health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorder”. Dutch legislation is very clear: there can be no demonstrations, unless demonstrators march peacefully and follow the rule of law. It is no different in Venezuela. Of the 68 persons who have lost their lives so far, only seven deaths have been attributed to government authorities, and those responsible have been charged and currently face prosecution. Fourteen persons have died during lootings of stores, shops and restaurants. Eight persons have died trying to pass street barricades erected by opposition protestors. Three persons have been shot dead by criminal gangs, one person has been lynched and three policemen have been killed by protestors. Thirteen persons have died accidentally and the remaining 19 deaths are still unaccounted for. The Venezuelan authorities do everything in their power to investigate those deaths and charge the perpetrators, regardless of their political allegiance. In this context it is important to point out one more time that Leopoldo Lopez is not a political prisoner. He was indicted and has been charged for publicly instigating violence, asking protestors to use non-peaceful means in order to overthrow the government of Nicolas Maduro, and about which there is irrefutable public evidence. Henrique Capriles was charged and banned from public office because of illicit administrative practices during his tenure as a governor of the Miranda state, not because of his role as an opposition leader.

Food shortages

Food shortages are not due to the fact that Venezuela has run out of financial means. Consider that just about a month ago Venezuela repaid US$2.7 billion on its debt. Food and medical shortages are created artificially by the blocking of opposition-controlled production and distribution channels. Evidence for the existence of a so called “Economic Warfare” has been collected by numerous academics. Their research is available at http://www.15yultimo.com/.[1] On top of this, last month Julio Borges, head of the Venezuelan parliament, sent more than a dozen letters to major banks asking them not to carry out transactions with the Venezuelan government. The financial blockade is a central component on the ongoing economic war against our country. The strategy to artificially create a situation where basic foodstuffs and medicines are in short supply is not new. The same happened to Chile in the early seventies, where economic warfare was one of the many dirty methods used to oust the democratically elected government of the socialist President Salvador Allende. In spite of the intensity of the ongoing economic warfare against Venezuela, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has declared Venezuela a country where the percentage of undernourished persons, relative to the whole population, was less than 5 % during the years 2014-2016. The same percentage as Western Europe.

Postponements of regional elections

Postponement of the regional elections has been falsely portrayed as a government “strategy” to suppress elections altogether. In reality, the main reason for the postponement was to give smaller parties the chance to comply with all legal requirements necessary (first and foremost the 0,5 % signature threshold) in order to participate in elections, as indicated in the “Law on Political Parties, Public Assemblies and Demonstrations” (Title I, Chapter III, Article 26). Nonetheless, on 23 May, the National Electoral Council set 10 December 2017 as the date for regional elections in Venezuela. It is important to stress here that the 19 elections held throughout the last 17 years have all been declared as completely transparent, free and fair by the Carter Centre, the Organization of American States, the European Union and other international election observers.

Recall referendum

Why has there not been a recall referendum? The answer is simple: according to the Venezuelan Constitution, a recall referendum needs to be carried out before half-term of the leader who may be recalled from office (Arts 72 and 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution). Opposition parties had not presented the signatures necessary for the referendum before half-term (July 2016). Carrying out a recall referendum after that deadline would be unconstitutional, just like calling general elections outside the period established in our Constitution would be unlawful. Venezuela is the only country in the world that can recall elected representatives at every level.

Separation of powers

Separation of powers in Venezuela exists within the framework of the principles stipulated in the 1999 Constitution, as it is the case in most countries. The best example of this has been the recent debate about the Supreme Court (TSJ) on the National Assembly, after stating that Parliament remained in contempt of Supreme Court previous rulings. The opposition-led National Assembly repeatedly refused to process ordinary, uncontroversial but above all constitutional initiatives from the government, such as investment decisions, financing of infrastructure projects, and so forth. The Supreme Court made a ruling to itself approve such Executive initiatives from there on. Venezuela’s Attorney General disagreed on the grounds that it might contravene some principles of the Constitution. Faced with a divergence that emerged among two key state bodies –  normal in any nation, which conclusively confirms the independence of all state bodies – the matter was resolved through a discussion in the appropriate body, the Defence Council of the State.

The OAS

The General Secretary of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, has violated the fundamental principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of its member states, acting against a number of articles of the OAS Charter. Article 1 of the OAS Charter, stating that “The Organization of American States has no powers other than those expressly conferred upon it by this Charter, none of whose provisions authorizes it to intervene in matters that are within the internal jurisdiction of the Member States.” Despite repeated attempts by the OAS Secretary General to apply the Democratic Charter against Venezuela and suspend it from the OAS, this has failed. It is important to stress here that the OAS has never taken the decision to apply the Democratic Charter to Venezuela as Almagro and many media keep falsely asserting. Furthermore, none of Luis Almagro’s pronouncements against the government of Venezuela have ever got the endorsement of the OAS, any of its bodies or the OAS Permanent Council (though there are some governments in the region that do share Almagro’s views on Venezuela, notably Brazil’s Temer government). Nevertheless, working hand in hand with the Venezuelan opposition and the US government, Secretary Almagro has abused his role in order to help create an impression of Venezuela as a failed state and put pressure on other countries to do so as well, with the apparent intention to bring about external intervention. Such development has no precedent in the history of OAS. His actions have prompted calls for resignation by Chilean legislators, the Bolivian Foreign Ministry and progressive social movements in the region, such as the Salvadorian Network in Solidarity with Venezuela.

OAS Secretary General, Luis Almagro, violating nearly every norm both OAS itself and his strictly administrative function, has dedicated his tenure to illegally interfere in Venezuelan affairs by unsuccessfully seeking to activate the OAS Democratic Charter against Venezuela, thus enabling the external intervention. The US Government, the real behind-the-scenes mastermind of OAS strategy, has openly threatened many Latin American and Caribbean countries for siding with Venezuela in the OAS.

The failure of the US-inspired Almagro’s OAS strategy against Venezuela has led to an extremely dangerous vicious circle: images of wanton violence in Venezuela feed Almagro’s and US’s threats against Venezuela, which in turn, feed more wanton and irrational violence in Venezuela.

Role of USA

The US government is illegal financing opposition political parties in Venezuela with the aim of destabilizing the country and forcing ‘regime change’. As part of her research, Eva Golinger, an American solicitor, has revealed that between 2002 and at least 2014, the US Government has channeled around 120 million US dollars to finance Venezuelan opposition parties and organizations[2]. This flow of money represents a violation of the Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination Act of 2010 which bans foreign funding of political groups in the country. The US Government has sent this funding to Venezuelan opposition groups mainly through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and USAID, all of which have worked closely with the CIA to bring about “regime change” in Venezuela. The spirit of this huge influx of resources was confirmed by President Obama’s Executive Order of 9 March 2015, and renewed a year later, which falsely declares Venezuela to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”.

Drugs

Venezuela is not a drug-producing country, but it unfortunately sits between the world’s largest cocaine producer, Colombia, and the world’s largest cocaine consumer, the United States. This  is why it always had and still has to fight illicit trafficking as well as  international narco-mafias within its borders. Venezuela has developed a comprehensive strategy to fight illicit drugs through international cooperation, the implementation of measures to reduce domestic consumption, the interception of illegal drug shipments, the destruction of clandestine airstrips, border monitoring measures and the detention and extradition of drug traffickers. Between 2008 and 2012 alone, 102 drug lords were captured and arrested. Twenty-one of them were promptly deported to the US and 36 to Colombia, at the requests made by the authorities of these countries and in compliance with international agreements on the fight against organized crime. The firm determination to face international drug trafficking mafias led President Nicolas Maduro to enact a law in 2012 enabling the interdiction of any drug-trafficking aircraft violating Venezuelan airspace. Thanks to this legal instrument, Venezuela has destroyed, disabled or brought down over 100 aircraft belonging to the drug transporting structure of Colombia and neighbouring countries illegally flying over our territory. In fact, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDC) recognises these efforts in their World Drug Report of 2015 stating that

“In the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, cocaine seizures decreased to 20.5 tons in 2013 (from 27.6 tons in 2012). According to authorities in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the country remains a transit point for cocaine, particularly cocaine trafficked by air in private aircraft, but newly introduced legislative changes related to air traffic control have decreased the entry and exit of uncontrolled aircraft, which has led to a decrease in drug trafficking by air (54).”

Violence

It is not in the interest of Maduro to have terror and violence in the streets. On the contrary, it is very much in the interest of the opposition to maintain it and even escalate it. Thus, the intoxicating one-sided international media reporting that quite deliberately endorse Almagro and US pronouncements, only fuels more violence. This is repugnant, especially since they know who is the source of the violence. Unfortunately, the international media omits reporting that polls consistently show that well over 80% strongly reject the current violence and they also overwhelmingly oppose “regime change”.

There are indeed honest and decent government opponents who peacefully protest. However, there are also hooligans, mercenaries and paramilitaries, whose task is to confront the police and create chaos. Second, the law enforcement agents in the streets have orders to respect human rights. Those who have disobeyed that order are being prosecuted.  Given this dangerous scenario, and the fact that the opposition refuses to engage in dialogue with the government (even though UNASUR, the Vatican and three former presidents continue to appeal to them to do so), President Maduro, invoking Arts 347, 348 and 349 of Venezuela’s Constitution, has called for a Constituent Assembly as a democratic political mechanism to bring about peace. Society’s response from all sections, even from the private sector, has been highly supportive and the Constituent process promises to produce exciting new developments that are likely to deepen the social dimensions of the Bolivarian Constitution, broadening and strengthening the 1999 Constitution.

Venezuela has the right to live in peace and not to be the target of US-led, US-financed and US-inspired permanent aggression. Venezuela demands respect for its sovereignty and self-determination, rejects external interference in its internal affairs, will not tolerate unconstitutional and violent acts to oust the legitimate and democratically elected government, and will insist on dialogue as the only way to address the problems the nation confronts. Unfortunately, the US and Venezuela’s extreme right insist on violent means to effect “regime change”. We in Venezuela have no choice but to defend our sovereignty.

Fake news

Ever since President Chavez passed away in 2013 and, even more openly, since the opposition won a parliamentary majority in 2015, the Venezuela’s opposition has tried to oust the democratically elected government of Venezuela, explicitly stating that their aim was to “get rid” of President Maduro within six months, no matter how. As it was clear by the end of 2016 they had failed to do so whether by legal or violent means, so they have adopted an international strategy. Their plan is to create the impression that chaos reigns in the country so as to justify and bring about external intervention. With the overwhelming majority of the media in opposition hands, and with the enthusiastic support of the world corporate media, a campaign of intoxicating proportions has been waged daily against the Venezuelan government. This strategy has been tried in the past, with the help of the US government, as evidenced in declassified papers.

In spite of all these years of economic warfare, financial blockades, media and psychological warfare against the government of Nicolas Maduro, we have managed to build 1.7 million heavily subsidised houses in the last three years. More than 1 million people have been lifted from illiteracy and the number of people receiving pensions and students has increased fourfold.

So as to respond to the food shortages resulting from the ongoing “economic war” waged against our government, in March 2016, the Local Committees for Supply and Production (CLAPs) were established. CLAPs distribute food packs filled with the most important Venezuelan staples such as pasta, rice, flour or salt at a fair price. According to the research institute Hinterlaces, 60 % of all Venezuelans believe that CLAP is the right way to deal with the economic crisis in Venezuela. So far, the 30.000 CLAPs in Venezuela are distributing food packs to 6 million households. Even the opposition admits that the CLAPs are working effectively and that they have helped ease social tensions. According to Datanalisis, 50 % of the Venezuelan population receives products through the CLAPs. In addition to this, the government created three new ministries in 2016 commissioned to address the current food shortages in Venezuela: The Ministry for Agricultural Production and Lands, the Ministry of Fishing and Aquaculture as well as the Ministry for Urban Agriculture. The latter in particular is expected to satisfy the needs of more than 3 million people through urban gardens, urban parcels, productive courtyards, organoponic vegetable gardens and urban glass-houses by 2020.

The way forward

We Venezuelans need to find a solution to our problems ourselves. Opposition protests are taking place in less than 1% of the Venezuelan territory. The majority of the Venezuelan people wants to live in peace and has grown tired of the ongoing protests, which make their life even more difficult. Polls persistently show that well over 80% reject the ongoing wanton violence. The Venezuelan government has insisted all along on dialogue and has reached out to include Pope Francis as well as the former Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in the discussions. Recently, President Maduro, invoking Arts 347, 348 and 349 of the Constitution, has announced a Constituent Assembly to modify the 1999 Constitution so as to unlock the current political impasse and bring about peace. Although fully in line with our laws, this act has falsely been called a “coup d’etat” by opposition leaders, who since 2013 have continually campaigned for a Constituent Assembly even collecting signatures for it. It is puzzling they quietly dropped the proposal when Art 348 states that it can also be called by “15% of the voters registered with the Civil and Electoral Registry”. The Venezuelan government will continue to act in full line with the Venezuelan Constitution of 1999 and asks you to respect and support its efforts for peace and dialogue. Furthermore, their alleged central reason for the current wave of violence was the “cancellation” of the regional elections. The National Electoral Council has just announced they will be held on 10th December 2017 but, true to their undemocratic and seditious nature, all opposition leaders have rejected and have said publicly they oppose these elections in the same way they called for a Constituent Assembly which they now violently oppose.

Notes from the editor.

For our Spanish readers we have to references that are important:

1. La izquierda despolarizada: Del monólogo de Próspero al Diálogo con Calibán: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6g8xuEX_KoJZ0R3bzdMb0NlNUk/view

2. Filósofo Enrique Dussel responde a intelectuales de izquierda que han criticado a Venezuela
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGoDxCZPCKY

 

 

[1]For a discussion in English, consult Dr. Curcio’s latest book “The visible hand of the market. Economic Warfare in Venezuela”, to be downloaded at: http://www.15yultimo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/THE-VISIBLE-HAND-OF-THE-MARKET.-ECONOMIC-WARFARE-IN-VENEZUELA.-PASQUALINA-CURCIO-C.pdf

[2] http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/25/the-dirty-hand-of-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-in-venezuela/

DENK (THINK) in Holland: First political party of people of color in parliament

A political party of people of color

Recently a unique development took place recently in The Netherlands.

In 2014 two Turkish members of the Dutch Labour Party in parliament, Tunahan Kuzu and Selçuk Öztürk, left the party because of its attitude towards racism and islamophobia. They started their own faction in parliament and eventually named their group DENK (THINK). Between 2014 and March 2017 they vigorously campaigned inside and outside on a platform against racism and islamophobia. The developed a program with radical demands, among others:

  • The focus in government policy should not be on integration but on acceptance of diversity.
  • The acknowledgement of institutional racism as the main problem.
  • The establishment of a racism-register of people, organizations and companies the openly promote racism so that government can act on prohibiting business with or subsidies to them.
  • Affirmative action and quota-arrangement in the labour market for people of color and women, starting with government jobs on a national and regional level.
  • A specific quota of 10% for people of color in the top of the major companies in the Netherlands.
  • Formal apologies and reparations for enslavement of black people in the former Dutch colonies and for the colonial wars in Indonesia.
  • Decolonizing history and renaming of streets, tunnels, bridges and museums and stop the celebration of villains.
  • Rewriting the history textbooks in the educational system that teaches about historic injustice committed by the Dutch.
  • Total abolition of Black Pete celebrations in the public and private domain.

The daring confrontation in parliament with the white parties and the smart use of social media to expose racism in parliament earned DENK a reputation of courageous fighters in the struggle against racism and islamophobia.

The campaign against DENK

The media, political establishment and the white left in Holland immediately reacted with outrage to DENK. The critique was not just about political positions. It was the whole idea that people of color would dare to be non-apologetic and confront racism directly in parliament was unacceptable. So a campaign of vilification was started. Kuzu and Öztürk are Muslim fundamentalism. They are the fifth column of Turkish president Erdogan in Holland. They are a divisive force that is dividing people rather than uniting them. They should denounce the Armenian genocide. They should speak out against Erdogan’s policy to arrest people involved in the military coup against Erdogan. They are anti LGTB and anti women, despite the fact that their program calls for banishing homophobia, closing the wage gap between men and women and a vigorous policy against sexual intimidation.

So the whole operation was directed at shifting the focus from racism and islamophobia to other issues.

Personal attacks, lies, framing them as irrational and attacking the whole idea of a political party for people of color had the opposite effect in the different communities of color. DENK was admired for their non-apologetic approach of racism and islamophobia. They attracted followers outside the Turkish community. They broadened their base to the Muslim community as a whole.

In May 2016 a well know black former TV presenter, Sylvana Simons, became a member of DENK. Although DENK already had black members, her entry into national politics via DENK created a big stir. It was symbolic for the unity of all people of colour, especially the Black-Muslim alliance. She became a target of a smear campaign. She received countless death threats. Immediately forces came into action to divide DENK. Simons was portrait as a radical, anti-white person, that had nothing to gain by allying herself with Muslim men, who are also patriarchal.

These forces were eventually succesfull. In December 2016 Simons left the party without prior notice or discussion. A few weeks earlier her supporters had secretly founded a new party, Article 1. This refers to the first article of the Dutch constitution that prohibits all discrimination. She announced that her parte was founded on the theory of intersectionality that does not divide people, but unites them. She used the argument of divisiveness against DENK to justify her split.

Leading white feminist Anja Meulentbelt and leading LGTB-scholar Gloria Wekker supported Simons and Article 1 in her split.

The elections

On March 15 the elections took place for the 150 seats of parliament. To the shock and surprise of the white community and the white political establishment DENK gained three seats. The Labor party went down from 38 to 9 seats. The extreme right won seven seats (the party of Geert Wilders won five and another extreme right party won two).

Article 1 did not gain a seat. She got half of the votes needed for a seat. Simons mainly got her votes from the black community. The hope that white women and white LGTB would support her did not materialize.

The victory of DENK energized many people of color who actively participated in the campaign and in the discussion on social media. A united front of Blacks and Muslims would have strengthened the struggle against racism and islamophobia. The split was more detrimental to the black community. If Simons had stayed in DENK she would now have been elected to parliament, because she would be number three on the slate of DENK.

Lessons

The first lesson is that in countries with large communities of color a political party that explicitly draws upon their support can have a major impact on the debate on racism and islamophobia, provided that they take a radical approach. Even if they get one seat, their voice in parliament has a major impact on the self-confidence of the communities of color and strengthens the struggle against racism and islamophobia.

The second lesson is that the unity of Black and Muslims is considered the most dangerous strategy by white power. That unity is a powerful force in bringing down institutional racism. That is why all forces of the white power structure (media, violent threats, politicians) are focussing on breaking that alliance. Unfortunately it succeeded for now, but hopefully activists from communities of color have learned this lesson and will work together to recreate this unity.

The third lesson is that the weakness of the theory of intersectionality has led to a shift in focus away from racism and islamophobia and has damaged the movement.

Hopefully these lesson will be valid for social movements in other European countries.

 

Sandew Hira

5-4-2017

Decoloniality Europe becomes Decolonial International Network

decolonialityEuropeIn 2012 activists from Europe established a network called Decoloniality Europe. Many of the participants maintain relations with decolonial organizations and networks outside of Europe. In order to develop these relations it was necessary to create a space that extends beyond Europe. That is why the network changed its name to Decolonial International Network.

LogoDINOrganizations who want to join the network can contact the coordinator of DIN: Sandew Hira, sandew.hira@iisr.nl.

Sandew wil engage in a conversation about the relationship with DIN and explores ways to develop it.

IHRC beams protest images onto Houses of Parliament and Bahraini embassy

In response to last week’s execution by the Bahraini government of three of its own citizens IHRC staged a double protest at the Houses of Parliament and the Bahraini Embassy in London.

Huge images bearing messages condemning the executions and the British government’s continued support for the authoritarian island monarchy were beamed onto both buildings last Friday night (19 January) in order to raise political and public awareness.

The giant messages (see attached photos) were set against the backdrop of the Bahraini flag and the faces of the three executed men, Abbas al-Samea, 27, Ali al-Singace, 21, and Sami Mushaima 42. All had been found guilty of planting a bomb which killed three policemen but their convictions were widely seen as politically motivated, based on retracted confessions and mired in allegations of serious torture.

Britain continues to politically and militarily support the Bahraini regime despite a well-documented history of human rights abuses against its citizens and reform campaigners.

A report commissioned by the Bahraini government (the BICI report) documenting the events of an uprising in 2011 revealed systematic torture, arbitrary detentions, and extra judicial killing in the streets. Although the Bahraini government accepted the report and promised to implement its recommendations, their implementation has been woefully inadequate. Professor Cherif Bassiouni, the head of the BICI team, wrote in June last year that most of the reforms had not been fully implemented.

Things actually seem to be getting worse. The country’s only remotely critical newspaper, Al Wasat, which was shut down in 2011, has now been ordered by the government to close its online edition too after criticising the executions.

Earlier this year Bahrain announced that it was reversing one of the BICI reforms which stipulated that the National Security Agency (NSA) have its powers of arrest removed. The power separation was considered important in controlling torture.

Despite these developments, last December PM Theresa May flew to Bahrain to meet with leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council on the sidelines of the organisation’s latest summit. The visit demonstrated a glaring disregard for human rights and also a dangerous message of approval to the al-Khalifa dictatorship.

A month earlier Britain opened its first military base in the Gulf in Bahrain, the first in the region since 1971. The base will be used by special forces and Navy destroyers, frigates and minehunters to help prop up the region’s autocrats. Britain also supplies Bahrain with military equipment and training which have been used to suppress indigenous uprisings and pro-reform protests.

Likewise the British government remains an unflinching backer of the Saudi Arabian government whose troops are stationed on the island in order to protect the regime against any threats to its rule.

IHRC chair Massoud Shadjareh said: “The extra-judicial murder of the three Bahrainis has once again highlighted the brutal nature of the al-Khalifa regime. It is high time that the British government stopped becoming an accomplice to the suppression and abuse of fundamental human rights. The British government’s contention that economic interests in the region are important should not be used as an excuse for us to acquiesce in the continuing torture and oppression of the Bahraini people.”

Check the images.

Decolonial International Network