anti colonization

Senator Murray Sinclair answers the question, why can’t Indigenous people just ‘get over’ the residential school experience. Murray Sinclair was the chair of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which was created in response to the abuses in Residential Schools.

A must watch.

Video originally posted here.
Canadian judge rules in favor of forcibly adopted First Nations survivors
Government is responsible for trauma of 16,000 indigenous children removed from families in ‘Sixties Scoop’ between 1965 and 1984, judge said

After a bitter legal battle that has lasted nearly a decade, a Canadian judge has ruled that the government is liable for the harm inflicted on thousands of First Nations children who were forcibly removed from their families and adopted by non-indigenous families.

Between 1965 and 1984, around 16,000 indigenous children were fostered or put up for adoption in an episode which became known as the “Sixties Scoop”.

Ontario superior court justice Edward Belobaba’s ruling Tuesday found in favour of survivors of the operation and their families, who argued that the forced removal robbed the children of their cultural identity and caused emotional damage that has resonated for generations.

“There is … no dispute that great harm was done,” Belobaba wrote. “The ‘scooped’ children lost contact with their families. They lost their aboriginal language, culture and identity. Neither the children nor their foster or adoptive parents were given information about the children’s aboriginal heritage or about the various educational and other benefits that they were entitled to receive. The removed children vanished ‘scarcely without a trace’.”

Continue Reading.

Just days after a national campaign was launched to highlight the effects of casual racism in Australia, this appears. Racism is far from being a thing of the past. Racism is alive and kicking today. Absolutely no doubt about that. And y’know, whites are proud to say that British invasion was necessary and justified. They are proud to state that the genocide that was committed upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was necessary, too. They are completely and wholly proud to be treating us as sub-human. Whites are proud to be the descendants of murderers and invaders. This is now and it’s terrifying. Stay safe everyone. We are living among these people.

anonymous asked:

I would highly recommend rewatching the Hamilton BET cypher and looking at Lin's face when Renee says "me and Pocahontas givin' smallpox to white folks." You're welcome in advance.

Yes… yes. I can also recommend this. Renée starts at 1:25 (Lin’s up first). Lin’s giving her the heart eyes, and then.. yeah, that face. Wow, wow. Danke. (Incidentally, I remember reading about them writing her bars together.)

The state of Israel was achieved by means of a Zionist colonization of Palestine, a colonization that continues today on remaining Palestinian land. To provide historical context, it is useful to review the general nature of colonization, as well as the defining European attitudes toward colonization during the late nineteenth century when Zionism began.

A working definition of colonialism might be “the policy of a state or a national group seeking to extend its authority or formal control over another peoples’ territory, usually through force and migration of its own settlers.” Colonization is usually imposed by a mother state though it can also be imposed by a nationality or people without a state.

The Zionist colonization of Palestine, like that of North America by the Europeans, is primarily that of the settler type involving displacement of the indigenous (native) population and replacement by the colonist’s own settler population. It may be contrasted with the commercial type of colonialism in which the indigenous population is retained as a source of cheap labor and future market, (e.g., the British colonization of India). Although the Zionist colonization of Palestine was intended to be, and ultimately became, that of the settler type, there were long periods during which the commercial aspect (retention of local Palestinian-Arab labor) remained. As to be expected, settler colonizations, with their dispossession of indigenous populations, are marked by conflict between the colonist and colonized. Maxime Rodinson observes:

Wanting to create a purely Jewish, or predominantly Jewish, state in Arab Palestine in the twentieth century could not help but lead to a colonial-type situation and to development of a racist state of mind, and in the final analysis, to a military confrontation.

Historically, justifications for colonialism have been linked to ethnocentric beliefs about the colonialists superior national character and culture. Consequently, colonization has typically been rationalized as good for those colonized. The spread of nineteenth-century-European colonialism throughout Africa, Asia and the Americas was considered by the Europeans to be their gift of high civilization to the natives—a more or less “altruistic” injection of high culture, religion, and national character that could only be an advance for backward peoples. Herzl, the father of political Zionism envisioned a Jewish state in Palestine as “an outpost of civilization against barbarism.” Although most Europeans viewed the natives around the world as genetically inferior—viewed them as “a kind of undifferentiated brown-stuff” (Orwell)—others more generously saw the natives as a backward yet earlier form of the European himself. In either view, colonization was considered to be a gift. Some viewed this injection of civilization to be the ultimate path to world peace. …Moreover, the natives, seen as devoid of government, culture, civilization, or political significance, would, it was claimed, profit from proper government imposed by Europeans. The Palestinians, for example, were dismissed by most Zionists as politically and culturally unworthy, an insignificant people who could only improve under Jewish rule.

In the mid-nineteenth century, colonization of other peoples was still well accepted. Metternich asserted that colonies could be “freely placed, not in opposition to but in the midst of more or less backward peoples.” At the time of the First Zionist World Conference in 1897, colonial expansionism was still the accepted “way of the world.” It was a time when Herzl was comfortable writing about the “expropriation” of Palestine for a future Jewish state and a necessity to “spirit the penniless population” across the border to Arab countries. Maxime Rodinson notes that colonizations by the Zionists and Europeans seemed “perfectly natural, given the atmosphere of the time.”

[Herzl’s plan] unquestionably fit into the great movement of European expansion in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the great European imperialist groundswell. There is no reason whatsoever to be surprised or even indignant at this. Except for a section of the European socialist parties and a few rare revolutionary and liberal elements, colonization at the time was essentially taken to mean the spreading of progress, civilization and well-being. …There is no need for us to moralize by applying to the Zionist leaders or masses of that time criteria that have become common today. But neither do we have the right to deny that their attitude was what it was, nor to disregard its objective consequences.

The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel’s Quest for Security Through Dominance. Baylis Thomas. 2009.

….true………….id have to hand in my sjw card…..bad idea but straight up i’m so interested by the justice system that i can’t decide if i want to try to dismantle the system on the outside because anarchy or get in there and make my services (mayhe as counsellour or somthin similar) particularly based on anti oppression, anti colonization, etc..
u didn’t ask for an in depth mismatch but u got one @tygale

On Gods of Egypt...

Why is it that “Sub-Saharan Africa” is considered so racially different than North Africa, even though its been proven that black people were always there?  Can it be….ANTI BLACKNESS?  Only colonizers and racists believe that Egypt was this tiny little island of “ pure, non-blackness”.  Racists have always depended on being able to erase the blackness of important people and civilizations, this movie is a damn insult because it is well known that people tried hard to pretend that Ancient Egyptians had no black ancestry, even to the point of grave robbing and vandalism. There is such a horrible history of anti-blackness and this movie contributes to it.  

Keep reading


Just want to share this educational resource with those of you who are interested in Canada’s “termination framework” taught by Cree lawyer Sharon Venne, who describes the process of government manufactured consent and the ways in which the Canadian government is using modern treaties and private bills to eliminate the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples to the land.

Submitted by delanes.

anonymous asked:

I just want to know, do you not like the white race?

It doesn’t matter if I do or do not like the white race. If I do, you may continue living your life to it’s fullest. If I don’t, you may log out and continue living your life to the fullest.

My standpoint on them is irrelevant, because me not liking white people wont do a goddamn thing. White people not liking me? Well that’s another story.

And if I didn’t like the white race, could you blame me? Honestly, could you blame me? Should I not have hostility towards a race with no humanity towards any race, but themselves. After EVERYTHING they’ve done to black people and POC? The erasure of our history, the demonizing of our people, the enslavement, rape, hyper sexualization, discrimination, colorism, self hate, anti blackness, torture, abuse,
Colonizing, micro aggression, subtle racism, and stealing of our identities.

Mark my words: If I have any sort of animosity towards the white race, it is justified. Totally and fully justified.

- Susie the Moderator

P.S. Blogging about POC everyday struggles with race, self hate, and oppression isn’t “hating” the white race. If that is what you think you lack empathy towards those of color.
Preface To Concerning Violence (Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak)

Frantz Fanon was born on the Caribbean island of Martinique in 1925, and grew up a gentleman of the French Empire. He realized, when he came from the island of Martinique to the mainland of France in Europe, through involvement in the French army elsewhere, that his class privilege among his own black people did not mean anything in the country of the colonizing masters—he was nothing but a black man. In a famous chapter in his book Black Skin, White Masks (rejected as a dissertation by a French university), he mentions his shock when a white French child cries out to her mother—”Mama, see the Negro!” But Fanon moves from just this shock into an attempt to understand colonization all over the world. In this very book, in the last chapter, he walks us through a reading of the European philosopher Hegel’s famous chapter on “Master and Slave,” and turns it to his own use. As we watch the film Concerning Violence, we remember this in the freedom fighters’ invocation of the named states of Mozambique and Angola, borders established by the imperialists. Fanon’s lesson was that you use what the masters have developed and turn it around in the interests of those who have been enslaved or colonized. In this he is with great leaders like W.E.B. Du Bois and Nelson Mandela. Fanon did not stop at thinking colonization, but wanted to do something about it. He gave his time and skill to the healing of those who suffered from violence.

He went to an African country that spoke French—as the resisters in this film speak Portuguese—creolizing the master’s language as their very own. Such thinking is shared by great writers such as Assia Djebar of Algeria, Njabulo Ndebele of South Africa, and Syed Abdul Malik of India. Receiving no response from Senegal, he went finally out of sub-Saharan Africa into Algeria in North Africa, where he, as a trained psychiatrist, worked in the Blida-Joinville Psychiatric Hospital, and developing a radical theory of colonial psychopathology, helped those who fought against French colonialism with the FLN, the National Liberation Front of Algeria, joining the party himself in 1954. My friend Assia Djebar, whom I have already mentioned, worked with him in Tunisia, and has shared with me in detail the actual experience of his work—to heal the effects of violence, rather than to condone violence as such.

Fanon died at 36, and we would have gained greatly if this man of fire and resolution had lived long enough to give us his wisdom when the colonized nations regularly fell into internal violence and internal class struggle and internal greed after so-called liberation. The issue of colonization is a greed shared by humankind. No one is better than anyone, every generation must be trained in the practice of freedom, caring for others, as did Fanon, and that is what colonization stops. Within the greed for capital formation, colonization allows already existing ignorant racism to spread the markets in the name of civilization or modernization or globalization, as it does today. This film captures the tragedy of the moment when the very poor are convinced in the name of a nation, that is going to reject it once it is established on its own two feet, to offer themselves up for a violent killing. The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, himself a strong anti-colonialist among the colonizers, read the book Fanon wrote in the last 10 weeks of his life, knowing that he was marked for death by acute leukemia, even as he was being hounded by the colonizing government of France, as an endorsement of violence itself—not reading between the lines, where Fanon insists that the tragedy is that the very poor is reduced to violence, because there is no other response possible to an absolute absence of response and an absolute exercise of legitimized violence from the colonizers. Their lives count as nothing against the death of the colonizers: unacknowledged Hiroshimas over against sentimentalized 9/11′s. Here the lesson of Gandhi regarding the power of passive resistance and the contrastive lesson of Israel in the exercise of state legitimized violence drawing forth violence in extremism is useful today. It is in this context that we remember that after the struggle against Portugal, the new nations of Angola and Mozambique fell into civil war, and disproved the dream of the very poor that decolonization would bring a new day. Mozambique has joined forces with capitalist globalization. This is the rule rather than the exception. Fanon’s own warning is contained in A Dying Colonialism. Against the grain of his optimism of the will, he writes: “it is no longer the age of little vanguards,” an unintended description of the guerilla warfare we will watch on the screen. Working within the problems created by a postcolonial nation which brings back the pre-colonial problems that the great historian Fernand Braudel called longue durée or long term: “structures which lie invisible below the surface of social activities,” many of us think that the real disaster in colonialism lies in destroying the minds of the colonized and forcing them to accept mere violence—allowing no practice of freedom, so that these minds cannot build when apparent decolonization has been achieved. From the example of mature leaders such as Du Bois and Mandela, we know or can at least have the feeling that Fanon would have gone in that direction. Unlike Gandhi, the early Du Bois, or yet Mandela, who worked for their own nation-states—Fanon was not himself an Algerian, not a member of the country which he helped. This is an important lesson for those of us who want to think the world rather than, thinking from within a nation-state, argue from identity, learning the lesson that mere national liberation without the practice of freedom cannot in fact bring a socially just world for the very poor. Fanon did not know the language of the common people of Algeria—Arabic; he was not himself a Muslim, the majority religion of Algeria. He could not know the power of religion as a discourse of political mobilization in today’s world, particularly after so-called independence in what is today called “the Islamic world.” I was working the election booths in Wahran (Algeria) in 1991. It is within the context of the aftermath of colonialism—that Fanon could not know—that the tragedy of what we watch in this film must be carefully considered. This is a teaching text.

I add a word on gender. This film reminds us that, although liberation struggles force women into an apparent equality—starting with the 19th century or even earlier—when the dust settles, the so-called post-colonial nation goes back to the invisible longterm structures of gendering. The most moving shot of this film is the black Venus, reminding us of the Venus of Milo with her arm gone, who is also a black Madonna, suckling a child with bare breasts. This icon must remind us all that the endorsement of rape continues not only in war but also, irrespective of whether a nation is developing or developed—in women fighting in legitimized armies. Colonizer and colonized are united in the violence of gendering, which often celebrates motherhood with genuine pathos. Here we have to promote our brother Fanon into a changed mindset, but he, who would have been in his 80s today, is not there for us. What I can recommend is that you also watch a video made by Algerian women active in the revolution called Barberousse mes soeurs (Hassan Bouabdallah, 1985) if you can get your hands on it.

Here now is our film, a tribute to and an illustration of Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth. I end it in Fanon’s own way, turning around for our own use what a European philosopher wrote for the use of Europe over 200 years ago: turning Kant around for our purposes as he did Hegel: “anything which the people (i.e. the entire mass of subjects) cannot decide for themselves and their fellows cannot be decided for the people by the sovereign either.” The people under colonization have had no practice of freedom. You cannot decide without practice. The ones you see on the screen are a small part of the people, the poorest of the poor, mobilized into violence by sovereign leaders: cannon fodder. This practice goes on in all armies, all resistance movements, in the name of nation and religion. Here Fanon would have been useful today. As for gendering, we must ourselves gender “the people.” Our brothers Kant and Fanon are not useful here. I thank Göran Olsson for setting us these tasks.

New York City, December 30, 2013