manning up on accountability
so, i wrote this on my facebook wall the other day and posted the link to the radio program and article. what follows is the response that i got, which basically makes me want to dig a hole and throw myself in it.
Feive Fyve Ryan Harvey discusses his critique of “militant anarchism” on Pacific’s “Against the Grain”. Definitely worth a listen.
Chris August Johnson
hmmm…young, white, middle-class anarchists excusing themselves from reality… sounds just like Ryan Harvey!
To paint the black bloc as being young, white and middle-class is racist, ageist and classist and steals agency away from many of those involved who belong to none of those descriptors.
Young Crudo:
YEAH!
Tino Valentino:
this guy’s windbag critique could have taken 1 minute to explain, and should have been credited to the hundreds of non-white, non-male activists and thinkers who have critiqued this before ryan harvey. you can take the manarchist out of the sports game but you can never take the blood-curdling righteousness out of the manarchist….
Feive Fyve
chris: i stand corrected.
Tino: amen.
Feive Fyve:
actually, chris, thanks for visiting my page. even though i’ve never met you, i want to thank you for inviting yourself to give feedback. i am thankful that you misread my comment and posted your strange reaction on my page. You’ve obviously spent a lot of time thinking about people’s boundaries and ways of going about building community and solidarity with others who may have similar interests and goals. you really went the extra mile in trying to understand. i like sharing with you, chris.
May i suggest re-reading my post? i was describing anarchists who are white, middle-class and young. i was not generalizing anarchists as if they only fit those categories. in the sentence you are referring to, “anarchists” is the plural noun and “young, white, and middle-class” are all descriptive adjectives. this is the major “subject” of my post. furthermore, the context that emerges when one considers the *whole* post would suggest that i am referring to a yet more specific group – those whose “tactics” continue to alienate. Before “tactics” the word “their” refers back to the major “subject” explained above. This same “subject”, or if you like, these three separate subjects — young, white, middle-class — have all been “subject” to criticism, as Tino pointed out above, many times before, by elders and participants of social justice movements who rightly point out that movement or organizational goals are derailed or discredited (just to mention a couple negative effects) by tactics performed by young, white, middle-class people. sometimes these people are anarchists.
you were right, i should have been more clear: throughout history, and in my personal experience, many young, white, middle-class anarchists have been good at excusing themselves from the reality that their tactics are often unnecessary, counterproductive and lacking in support from and/or opposed by the communities and movements that they effect the most. *negatively* effect the most. all this while they claim to be a part of this social movement.
now whose agency is being stolen?
also, black bloc is a tactic, not a static institution or group of people. read about its origins and study its representation in media and popular opinion. hopefully it will become obvious that it’s not worthy of romanticization.
