An Everyday Epic Battle: Pride Toronto, Blackness Yes, Israeli Apartheid and Sticking Together

By Deputy Editor Thea Lim

I am from Toronto, though I now live in Houston.  I get most of my Toronto community news through Facebook, and I have been watching with disgust and amazement for the past two months as my Facebook feed has filled up with reports about Pride Toronto, Blackness Yes! – a community organization that celebrates black queer and trans history – and Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA).

Long story short: Pride Toronto, which is an internationally famous week-long celebration of queer and trans pride, has made conscious or unconscious attempts to curtail the wholehearted participation of queer and trans folks of colour and their allies in Pride. They have attempted to relocate and shrink black-identified spaces, and they have banned QuAIA from participation in Pride 2010.  This year queer & trans people of colour (QTPOC) and their allies may participate in Pride, but only as long as they check their histories and politics at the door.  Short story long? Hang on to your hats, this is an epic tale.

Blackness Yes!

The first news I heard of this mess was in April, when the Blackness Yes! Blockorama party was asked to move by the Pride Toronto organizing committee for the third time in 4 years.

Blackness Yes! organizer Syrus M. Ware describes Blockorama and Blackness Yes!:

Since 1998 Blockorama has been a party at Pride where black queer and trans folks, their allies, supporters and people who love them came together to say no to homophobia in black communities and no to racism in LGBTQ communities. To say Blackness Yes at Pride – loud and proud…We have built Blockorama out of love, through sweat and toiling. For 12 years, we have claimed space, resisted erasure, found community, shared memories, built bridges, embraced sexuality, and found home. Blockorama is not just a party or a stage at Pride. It is a meeting place for black queer and trans people across North America- Blockorama is the largest space of its kind at any Pride festival on the continent.

Yet Pride Toronto has multiple times tried to move Blockorama further away from the main events, or relocated the party to smaller spaces that will not fit the huge crowds Blockorama draws.  Blockorama is a hugely important part of Pride, not only a black space where queer black folks go to party, but also a space that has always been immensely welcoming to non-black folks of colour.  Pride Toronto’s moves – whether or not they are racist – indicate a lack of sensitivity, care or even basic awareness of the size and meaning of Blockorama.

University of Toronto professor Rinaldo Walcott wrote this letter to the Pride Toronto organizing committee, upon news that Blockorama was to be moved again:

…at the same time that Pride Toronto has moved Blocko three times, Pride Toronto has also taken on the mantle of global human rights as its signature issue.

It is in fact the discrepancy between Pride Toronto’s treatment of local black communities participation in pride events and its attempt to position itself as a global player in the LGBTQ global rights movement that I find particularly offensive, disrespectful and unmindful of the very communities residing here that Pride Toronto would seek to champion overseas.

How can this be? How could it be that Pride Toronto did not see this ethical dilemma before it? Is it because Blocko is the last non-commercial space at pride? Is it because like much else in this country Pride Toronto too believes that black people as a constituency can be ignored? These are genuine questions, not accusations.

…We will not as black people here and globally stand to be exploited by white folks who now want it to appear that all is well at home, but not elsewhere.

On April 13 Blackness Yes! held a community meeting to protest these moves.  Deviant Productions, an alternative youth media collective, made a video of the meeting:

You can read a transcript of the video here.

In many ways this community mobilisation was successful.  3 days after the meeting, Pride Toronto agreed not to relocate Blockorama to a smaller venue for this year, and agreed to work with Blockorama, starting in July, to put a stop to the yearly migrations and find a permanent home for Blocko at Pride.

However negotiations are stalled around the matter of a dancefloor. This is a queer dance party, after all.

Blockorama site coordinator Syrus M. Ware says of the Blockorama site for this year: “Where we have been put is lovingly refered to as the ’swamp’”: Blockorama requires temporary flooring in the park to ensure the safety and accessibility of its dance space.  Pride Toronto agreed to find funding for said dancefloor, but it is two weeks to the party and the money has yet to come through.

Ware says, “The sponsorship ask has still not been sent to me. I worry that this will not come through this year –  it does not seem to be one of Pride’s priorities. We have not yet been contacted about a date to plan for a better site for next year…we will wait and see what happens on the day of.”

He continues, “We have deliberated very long and very hard about whether or not to pull out of Pride this year. After our meeting, we met and strategized with QuAIA…We have decided to stay in the festival for this year- but we dont know about next year. We are committed to creating space to celebrate and shout Blackness Yes!, and we will do this with or without Pride Toronto.”

Israeli Apartheid

At the very same time as they were dealing with Blockorama drama, Pride Toronto was doing some shady dealing around another group of QTPOC and their allies. A letter dated April 14th (as in, the day after the Blockorama meeting) from the City of Toronto’s executive director of culture detailed a conversation where Pride Toronto’s board discussed ways to ban Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) from marching in the Pride parade. On May 25, Pride Toronto announced that QuAIA would not be allowed to march in the parade or participate in Pride, due to the City of Toronto’s complaints over the term “Israeli Apartheid”:

…the participation of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) may contravene the City’s own anti-discrimination policies in relation to “place of origin” and that Pride Toronto, as a recipient of City of Toronto funding, is required to adhere to said policies…

QuAIA states that they use the word “apartheid” because it is the best way to describe a system of differentiated (queer) rights based on race. On their website they explain:

Today, in response to increasing criticism of its occupation of Palestine, Israel is cultivating an image of itself as an oasis of gay tolerance in the Middle East. As queers, we recognize that homophobia exists in Israel, Palestine, and across all borders. But queer Palestinians face the additional challenge of living under occupation, subject to Israeli state violence and control. Israel’s apartheid system extends gay rights only to some, based on race.

QuAIA is a diverse group, their membership including Jewish, Muslim, Arab, Palestinian and white queer and trans folks.

This ban hinges entirely on language – QuAIA would be allowed to participate in Pride and even articulate solidarity with queer Palestinians, if only they would stop using the word “apartheid.”  After expressing her distaste for the ban, Ellie Kirzner, editor of a leftist entertainment weekly in Toronto wrote:

I think it’s time to try the window; Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, change the name of your organization…I fear the use of [the word "apartheid"] has unmindfully offered a lever to the other side. It’s time to declare less and deliver more…Would the sky fall if Queers Against Israeli Apartheid became Queers Against the Occupation? Or Queers for Mideast Justice? Or just about anything that would advance the plot on behalf of Palestinians?

While I understand Kirzner’s just-do-whatever-works-for-the-movement approach, doesn’t the kerfuffle kicked up by a single, shocking word – because again, it is about the word, not the existence of the group all together – mean that we should talk about why this word upsets us so much?

In the world history of oppression, we often like to attach fixed definitions with specific illustrations to fluid terms. And so our definitions are too small to capture our terms; we have the language to describe our world, but we don’t know how to use it. For example, we attach “American slavery until 1865″ to “racism” – so anything that happens in America that isn’t on the level of the enslavement of others based on race, cannot be racism. Or we attach “assault in a darkened place by a stranger” to “rape,” so that when a woman is attacked by a man she trusts, it cannot be rape. Or we attach “South Africa before 1994″ to “apartheid”, so that anything that does not involve the worldwide horror at South African apartheid, cannot be the systematic separation of rights by race – even when it is.  Oppression, racism and systemic cruelty are ideas and machines that work by changing shape.  If we hope to confront and dismantle them, we need to blow open our definitions.

Depressingly, money is at the heart of Pride Toronto decision to ban QuAIA. From the CBC:

The use of the words has put the Pride organizers on a collision course with the City of Toronto, which says the name of the group ‘Queers Against Israeli Apartheid’ violates its anti-discrimination policy.

In 2009, the city gave the Pride festival $121,000 to help defray costs.

Xtra! quotes Pride Toronto board co-chair Genevieve D’Iorio:

D’Iorio says city and corporate sponsors are threatening to pull funding, and banning the phrase “Israeli apartheid” is the best position PT organizers could take. Pride simply wouldn’t happen, she says, without the city’s financial and in-kind support.

Pro-Israeli groups in Toronto have been pushing for QuAIA’s ban since last year; the May 25 decision has been on the table since last November.  A group called Reclaiming Our Pride argued that QuAIA was a “disgruntled group using Pride as a platform to further their own political agenda…only groups supporting gay rights can be in the parades.”  This stance seems to miss the point that QuAIA’s mandate is to support gay communities in Palestine (key word: gay).  The whole “this Palestine stuff is diluting my parade” line is unpleasantly close to the whole “anti-racism is making feminism lose its focus” argument that we are all so tired of hearing.  Both gay rights activists who only want to talk about sexuality, and feminists who only want to talk about gender, forget that there are many women and queer & trans folks who are also…people of colour. You can only parcel out sexuality and race when your worldview is imbued with white privilege.

Lobbyists who pushed for the banning of QuAIA have also complained that QuAIA is trying to make Pride “political.” Yet the nature of Pride is political to begin with and that is inescapable: pride celebrations exist around the world to celebrate and take space for a identity that is political because it is politically marginalised.  And yet in Toronto Pride is contorting itself to betray its own purpose, as it attempts to silence members of its community when Pride is supposed to be about coming out into the open.  In an gruesomely ironic turn, the slogan for this year’s Pride Week is “You Belong.”

And the commercialisation, depoliticisation and white-ification of Prides worldwide has become a matter of grave concern. San Francisco has an alterna pride called Gay Shame; this year in Toronto a counter-Pride celebration called Take Back the Dyke has been set up in order to, organizer piKe Krpan says, return Pride to its political roots and reject the commercialism, police escorts and censorship policies of Pride Toronto. On Sunday, an international group called No Homonationalism announced that superstar academic Judith Butler has refused her Zivilcourage (civil courage) Prize from Pride Berlin, saying

the parade had become too commercial, and ignor[ed] the problems of racism and the doublediscrimination suffered by homosexual or transsexual migrants.

3 days after Pride Toronto announced their decision to ban QuAIA, the grand marshal for this year’s Pride parade stepped down. Dr Alan Li wrote:

I was a keynote speaker at the second Pride celebration in 1982. I thus remember very clearly our communityʼs battles against censorship that attempted to invalidate our concerns, minimize our struggles and silence our voices. I remember struggles to ensure that the many diverse voices in our community were heard.

Prideʼs recent decision to ban the term “Israeli Apartheid” and thus prohibit the participation of the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid from participating in Pride celebrations this year is a slap in the face to our history of diverse voices. Prideʼs choice to take preemptive step to censor our own communitiesʼ voices and concerns in response to political and corporate pressure shows a lack of backbone to stand up for principles of inclusiveness and anti-oppression.

In early June, 23 recipients of Pride Toronto awards – honoured dykes, grand marshals, special award honourees and international grand marshals – returned their awards in protest of Pride Toronto’s banning of QuAIA.  You can read a full list of their statements here.  This is a video of the event, also from Deviant Productions:

A surprising addition to the list of honourees returning their awards is Matthew Cutler, who identifies as a Liberal Zionist and makes the argument for why the term “Israeli Apartheid” should be allowed in the parade, despite the fact that it causes distress to some members of the Toronto queer and trans community. At 3:48 he states:

[The] use of a term “Israeli apartheid” continues to offend me, but has led me to conversations Israel, Palestine and the Middle East…conversations which have helped me to become a more engaged and informed Liberal Zionist. [I return my award] with the hope that generations of young people like myself will continue to be offended, will continue to grow learn and discuss difficult ideas and issues…

The Guardian (a UK paper – news of Pride Toronto’s ban  has reached far) makes similar criticism:

At a time when many countries are becoming more critical of Israel’s policies, Canada seems to be moving in the opposite direction. A general reluctance to engage in open debate about the Palestinian issue is exacerbated by pro-Israel groups’ efforts to shut down discussion…Since the beginning of 2010, the federal government has systematically cut funding to Arab-Canadian organisations and to UN relief works in Gaza. In March, the Ontario provincial legislature issued a unanimous condemnation of Israeli Apartheid Week, while the federal government considered introducing a similar motion.

However, self-censorship reached new heights last month when Toronto’s Pride Committee – which organises one of the world’s largest gay pride celebrations – announced it would be banning use of the term “Israeli apartheid” at the festivities…But when asked, neither Pride Toronto nor Giorgio Mammoliti – the Toronto city councillor mainly involved – could explain in detail what was discriminatory about describing Israel’s privileging of its Jewish citizens over others as a form or racism and apartheid.

QuAIA plan to march in the Pride parade anyways.

Sticking Together

While news of the active exclusion of queer and trans folks of colour and their allies from Pride Toronto has made me feel depressed and tired – this is my hometown, and many of those excluded are people I love – I also have been deeply moved by the mobilisation of my community, and the solidarity across communities of colour.

Ware from Blockorama told me a grisly tale about attempts to fracture Toronto’s QTPOC communities:  ”We were approached by many ‘Blocko supporters’ after [our April 13 meeting]…the most concerning was an ally from TD Canada Trust.  This ally has been a great supporter of Blocko…during the weekend of April 19, 2010, while we were considering whether or not to accept Pride’s offer and to stay in the festival or not, we were contacted by the TD rep. They indicated that they would offer us their full support, but wanted to know first, ‘what was our position on QuAIA.’”

In other words Blockorama were offered funding that they desperately needed to keep their black-identified party afloat, in exchange for breaking rank with a queer Muslim, Arab and Jewish group. Ware says TD’s support would’ve been enormous for Blockorama, to the point of putting pressure on Pride to treat Blockorama better, since TD is a huge sponsor of the entire Pride celebration.

Blockorama declined TD’s offer. Ware and Blackness Yes! say

Our liberation and freedom will not come at the expense of another communities. We stand in solidarity with QuAIA and all of the other groups marginalized within Pride and also broader LGBTTI2QQ organizing.

Blockorama and QuAIA have been working on a Pride Community Contract together to strategise a way forward.

What truly depresses me is how the battles that both Blockorama and QuAIA are fighting are just so normal. Which is why I called this post “an everyday epic battle” – all this debacle with Pride Toronto is typical of the struggles that people of colour face every single day to make themselves a space, even within supposedly inclusive spaces. The insensitivity, meanness, attempts to divide and the silencing are cruelly banal.

But it also warms my little heart that these everyday violent putdowns so often meet a Fight: a kicking and screaming refusal to back down, and a determination to stick together.


Apologies that transcripts are not available for the posted videos. I contacted the creators of the videos and they hope to have transcripts eventually, so I will come back and add them in if that is possible at a later date.

Thanks to Elisha, Syrus, piKe, Alexis and Michelle for all their help with this piece!

UPDATE: The Blockorama Displaced video now has a transcript. Thanks Lali and Deviant Productions!

UPDATE:

23 June 8:30 pm: Pride Toronto has lifted its ban on “Israeli Apartheid.” From Xtra:

Pride Toronto (PT) has reversed its May board resolution banning the term “Israeli Apartheid” and will instead require all participants to sign and abide by the City of Toronto’s non-discrimination policy.

Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) — the target of the ban — has declared a victory and congratulated the queer community for pushing PT to reverse its censorship decision

“This is a victory for the Palestine solidarity movement, which has faced censorship and bullying tactics from the Israel lobby for far too long,” said QuAIA member Tim McCaskell in the release

Brad Fraser, another member of the coalition, says that the ban would not have been lifted had it not been for the popular revolt of queer people over the last month.

“It’s a tremendous victory for anyone who dared to speak out,” says Fraser.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. crooked lunch on 23 Jun 2010 at 5:14 pm

    [...] Posted on June 23, 2010 by kidcrooked hats off to blogger, racialious [...]

  2. Links of Great Interest: Sit down and shut up. | The Hathor Legacy on 25 Jun 2010 at 3:44 am

    [...] Toronto’s Pride committee is FAILING at the above points. [...]

  3. Why We March: Trans Day of Action | Work In Progress on 25 Jun 2010 at 2:25 pm

    [...] We will march because corporate sponsored Pride events don’t help you when you’re excluded from them. [...]

  4. Toronto Fail (Link Round-up): Shame, Not Pride, Toronto. « Restructure! on 30 Jun 2010 at 9:02 am

    [...] An Everyday Epic Battle: Pride Toronto, Blackness Yes, Israeli Apartheid and Sticking Together by Thea Lim (June 23, 2010): Long story short: Pride Toronto, which is an internationally famous week-long celebration of queer and trans pride, has made conscious or unconscious attempts to curtail the wholehearted participation of queer and trans folks of colour and their allies in Pride. They have attempted to relocate and shrink black-identified spaces, and they [had] banned [Queers Against Israeli Apartheid] from participation in Pride 2010. [...]

Comments

  1. RLS wrote:

    This was a really great piece. It’s sad and depressing to read about this stuff, but the reality is that queer POCs have to FIGHT and SCREAM to get our voices heard and our stories told even within the supposedly inclusive gay spaces. I’m a writer, and my experience is that the (rich, white, and male) powers that be in the gay community simply have no interest in incorporating the experiences, stories, and voices of gay POC into the overall message that they’re trying to put out. Blacks are either heavily fetishized, feminized (males), or portrayed as either DL thugs or HIV carriers. Latinos are either heavily sexualized or nonexistent, and Asians are portrayed as demure, passive accessories to those in power. The dynamics are truly screwed up, and is just now starting to change.

  2. Darth Paul wrote:

    Disgraceful, but I’ve long been suspicious of the LGBTQ rights self-declared mainstream (re: most visible and rich) and the manifest white liberal consumerism it embodies. I’m thrilled that at least the Canadian satrap is being exposed for what it is; though quite angry about the circumstances and those who continue to be marginalized.

    We’re not all white collar, graduate degreed, upper middle class (or higher), “just like everyone else” aspirants to gay marriage or additional wealth; and it’s time we deprive those who impose such views of their thunder.

  3. Kenji wrote:

    it’s been disheartening that the largest and loudest counter-pride group here has taken this on not as a battle against racism, but a battle for…’free speech’? thank you thea for recentering the story back to where it belongs!

  4. Trevor Cunnington wrote:

    I thoroughly agreed with this excellent article. The news about Blockorama was new to me, and it was a much needed addition to the other stories I’ve been following with regards to Pride. It is refreshing to read some thoughtful perspectives on Pride, rather than the same old, predictable and polarized positions.

    Thank you for the hard work on all queers behalf.

  5. Daniel A.P. wrote:

    Thanks for posting this. It’s an excellent summary of the situation.

  6. gatamala wrote:

    This is an excellent article. I will forward it to people who should know in DC.

  7. Val wrote:

    This is not surprising at all. I live in the SF Bay Area and Pride events are very segregated here.

    SF Pride is a White event and then there’s Black Pride in the East Bay. In fact there are Black Pride events all over the U.S.

    I suppose that after begging to be included for so long people tire and have their own events. Maybe the LGBT communities of color in Toronto should have their own Pride too.

  8. Chad wrote:

    This is an interesting article, which, like many on this topic, completely ignores that Pride has moved almost every participating group each year over the past several years, due to expansion and reorganization of the festival.

    Likewise, the article ignores the fact that Pride consults with community groups, including Blackness Yes!, about their growth strategies.

    It also ignores the incredible efforts Pride undertakes each year to highlight and spotlight communities of colour, and the praise the festival gets each year for showcasing the cultural and ethnic diversity of Toronto.

    It also pretends that only pro-Israeli groups are opposed to QuAIA’s messaging, when in reality, as has been previously noted by Pride, literally 100s of emails were received in complaint over QuAIA’s presence and messaging last year.

    The City of Toronto has a resolution against the use of the term “Israeli Apartheid,” specifically identifying it as being hate-filled and inciting. The Ontario Legislature passed a resolution condemning the use of the term “Israeli Apartheid” and condemning “Israeli Apartheid Week” events at Ryerson and other universities.

    Like most harsh criticisms of Pride Toronto, this one ignores that the majority of the community Pride serves is happy with the growth and direction of the festival, as evidenced by its continued growth, expansion and success. It ignores the indisputable fact that Pride’s organizers are themselves part of our community, a diverse group of people who have been active in and for our community for many years.

    Could Pride Toronto do better? Of course, and they are working to constantly improve. In the meantime, give them some credit for not only rescuing, but improving and expanding a festival that was at risk of dissolution a few short years ago.

  9. Chanda wrote:

    Let me tell you what makes me FURIOUS about this. I have been peripherally involved in some of the QuAIA stuff because I used to be a member of a queer women’s group that did solidarity work for Palestine when I lived in Toronto, and not one person mentioned the anti-Black stuff to me. I’ve been asked to forward several emails, to make contacts etc, and nothing.

    So I guess, this calls for a Thank You to Thea, and also, I’m really, really, really pissed at the activists who thought that the stuff relating to Black folks didn’t matter. I’m glad that at least some of them were strategizing with Blockorama, but where’s the publicity? Where’s the solidarity?

  10. Chanda wrote:

    Chad –
    Just because elected officials don’t like the words “Israeli apartheid” doesn’t mean that banning people from using them in a political forum isn’t censorship.

    Freedom of speech, even the slightly more limited Canadian Freedom of Expression, is meant to ensure that people can’t just silence people they don’t agree with, and that’s exactly what Pride is doing here.

    And by the way, if you were a Palestinian Queer, how would you feel right about now? Telling Palestinians that they can’t speak about their intersectional experiences of oppression is like telling Black queers that they can’t talk about racism at a queer event. And I bet Pride, the City of Toronto, and the Province of Ontario wouldn’t _dare_.

    On a more technical note: were those 100s of emails from members of the Pro-Israel organizations? My experience working in Palestinian solidarity work in Toronto tells me that the answer is probably yes. But, the problem is that neither you nor I knows the answer to that question, so that “fact” is a bit of a moot point. I think the more interesting one is that many visible community members who were to be honored at Pride have bowed out, ashamed by its choices.

  11. Thea Lim wrote:

    @Chad

    If you follow a few of links I included, you’ll note that both Blackness Yes and the Pride Community Contract make specific criticism of the fact that Pride Toronto is not transparent and does not do enough consulting with the communities it is supposed to represent. This is the open letter from Blackness Yes: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=432931475448&id=628615609&ref=nf This is the Pride community contract: http://pridecommunitycontract.wordpress.com/

    You will also notice that I included a direct quote from Ware talking about how Blackness Yes have not yet received a date for the consulation they are supposed to have with Pride in July.

    Also, how is 100s of emails that Pride received proof that the emails did not come from pro-Israeli groups and individuals? I would have to assume by the very nature of such complaints that the senders are pro-Israeli.

    And yes, the City of Toronto is responsible for the ban, as noted in the original post, and in the Guardian article quoted. I don’t know why this would shift my position on Pride Toronto.

    Your response is one I have heard before when folks criticise community organisations or “inclusive spaces” – “can’t you see they’re working hard? Why can’t you acknowledge that?”

    As I said in a post about feminism a few months back (and it strikes me that there are a lot of parallels that we can draw between queer/trans communities’ exclusions of POCs and feminism’s exclusion of POCs) – all community organisations work hard, but it is not the responsibility of those that they fail to “give them credit.” It is our responsibility to point out the holes, and demand they do better.

  12. Chanda wrote:

    I am not sure I understand why the paragraph talking about the fluidity of terms is necessary. Black South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu himself has said that what he witnessed in Palestine is like South African apartheid.

    The debate about the use of the word isn’t just semantics. It’s a very serious one that comes to the heart of answering a question: what exactly are the Palestinians being subjected to? (And the secondary question for Jews with right of return like me, and in whose name is it being done?)

    The reason the term “apartheid” should be part of the discourse is because of what is happening, not because our definitions should be a little more flexible. In other words, Palestine _is_ South Africa before 1994, but without the same powerful global movement trying to stop it, which is a crying, crying shame.

  13. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ Chanda

    Yes this has definitely been a matter of concern, especially since the QuAIA stuff has kicked up so much dust that folks are forgetting Blockorama’s struggle. I really enjoyed watching The Gay Shame awards (see the last video in the post) video and the speakers said many important and moving things, but very few of the honourees returning their awards even mentioned the word “racism”, let alone expressed solidarity with Blackness Yes. This is too bad considering how much Blackness Yes has shown solidarity with QuAIA, often making sacrifices to do so. Activism has a short memory sometimes. This issue is becoming solely about “free speech” when actually to me it is more about race and power.

  14. guhh wrote:

    “It also ignores the incredible efforts Pride undertakes each year to highlight and spotlight communities of colour”

    Chad – it’s statements like this that diminish the HARD WORK and FIGHTING that communities of colour had to do to be included in Pride. bleh, take your pinkwashing elsewhere

  15. Quietmarc wrote:

    It’s amazing how during -every- struggle for rights (race, gender, gay), no matter at which point, someone always says “Well, they (the people with privilege) have come so far, can’t you cut them some slack?”

    Exactly at which point should the oppressed stop demanding equality?

  16. WestEndGirl wrote:

    To be honest, the narrow-sightedness of allegedly anti-racist and progressive people here regarding Israel is mind-boggling to me.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/09/madrid-gay-pride-bans-israelis

    Only Israelis banned mind. Not a state-sponsored or government delegation banned. But Israeli people from one of the most gay friendly cities in the world. Never mind that those LGBTQ’s are typically the most progressive people in Israel. Never mind that no group of other Middle Easterners *could* actually come from their countries to openly represent themselves to then be rejected out of hand on the basis of the “crimes” committed by their States. Not without a very nasty welcoming committee waiting for them on their return I would expect.

    But this, to me, is sadly the logical conclusion of the thinking found behind Thea’s comment: “I also have been deeply moved by the mobilisation of my community, and the solidarity across communities of colour.”

    The thinking behind this echoes Helen Thomas’ manoeuvre of erasing the c.60+% of Israeli Jews who ARE actually of colour. Not to mention the Israelis of Druze and Palestinian Arab origin who also benefit from the openness of Israeli society to LGBTQ people.

    There is just no one simple explanation of the Israeli/Arab/Palestinian conflict and the usual consideration given to recognising interconnected oppressions just goes right out the window when it comes to Israeli Jews, who in this blog’s narrative are all just European white evil colonial racists who must be fought by progressives everywhere. Never mind definitions, let’s just stretch a word with the very worst connotations of racism we can possibly find (not even to mention the Warsaw Ghetto analogies), to force it to fit and then demonise all Israeli Jews on the basis of this flawed definition.

    Let’s be clear right up front, I am not making excuses for the Occupation (I think it’s despicable) or the brutal excesses of various Israeli governments, far from it. But as a mixed Ashkenazi/Mizrahi Jew, with family in the US, Canada, the UK and Israel, when those who claim to be progressive deliberately and ONLY exclude Israeli Jews from basic humanityand progressive causes simply on the basis of their nationality, I find it deeply disturbing.

    And excluded they are, otherwise the Madrid ban would not happen and people would not be claiming that not being able to use the highly debatable phrase “Israeli Apartheid”: “shows a lack of backbone to stand up for principles of inclusiveness and anti-oppression”. How is this type of banning and demonising behaviour and language exactly being inclusive of GLBTQ Israeli Jews of Yemeni origin? Oh no, it’s not. Because it can’t enter into an equation like here on Racialicious where the very definition is Israelis = evil racist white people and Palestinians = good oppressed brown people.

    Eve Garrard writing at the philosopher Norman Geras’ blog makes a better point about this than I ever can:
    http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/06/israel-human-decency-common-humanity-by-eve-garrard.html

  17. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ WestEndGirl

    Your response appears to be conflating Israelis with the Israeli government. I would agree with you that individuals should not banned from parades – as far as I can tell from the Guardian article the people in question are not marching as a political group that is for the Israeli oppression of Palestinian people, so I would agree with you that it is wrong that they should be banned. The issue that QuAIA has is not with Israeli people, but with the Israeli government.

    Many QuAIA members are Jewish and have Israeli family members – I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are Israeli. So when I talk about the mobilisation of my community, that includes those folks. If you haven’t already you should watch the “Speaking out against Israeli Apartheid” video – it details how many QuAIA people identify.

    I am definitely not conflating Israeli people with Israeli apartheid – not sure where you are getting that from in my article.

    Maybe you would like to elaborate on how arguing that the term “Israeli Apartheid” bars Israeli people from participating? The only way I can see it barring people from participating is if they themselves identify entirely with the Israeli government, something that you yourself go to a great extent to point out is a dangerous assumption about Israeli people.

    This is a protest against a government that you personally do not defend, not the people who live in Israel or are Israeli and who – like any group of people will have about those who claim to represent them – have extremely varied opinions about the Israeli government.

  18. D wrote:

    Somewhat good news, though all the issues mentioned in this article still need to be addressed: Pride Toronto has reversed its decision:
    http://www.xtra.ca/blog/national/post/2010/06/23/Pride-Toronto-reverses-ban-on-Israeli-apartheid.aspx

  19. Hapa wrote:

    This makes me sick.

  20. Yonah wrote:

    WestEndGirl: Cosign, especially about the 60+% POC comment. And could we say something about the poverty levels? My neighbourhood is mostly Ethiopian Israeli Jews, with a minority of Moroccans. BUT, Israel is all white, right? I wonder what we can do about that particular ignorance.

  21. Daisy-Boo wrote:

    One thing I wonder is if anyone considers how South Africans feel about having the word Apartheid co-opted.

    It is not just a word. Most South Africans have lived through that system. Those that didn’t live through it still experience the effects of it today. I know that every time I see the word I feel a little sick. There are too many bad memories associated with the word.

    Maybe I’m being selfish and short-sighted but from a purely emotional perspective, I feel like something is being taken away from black South Africans when the word is used elsewhere.

    It is still so difficult in this country to get (mostly the white) people to acknowledge how insidious, pervasive, soul-destroying and downright dangerous it was for a person of colour in Apartheid South Africa. Now the very word that symbolises the horrors we lived through is being co-opted by others.

    As I said, maybe I’m just being selfish. If using the word will shine a light on oppression in other areas of the world then I can’t, in good conscience, object to that. I hope that with time I’ll stop feeling like yet another thing is being taken from non-white Soutth Africans.

  22. Yonah wrote:

    I heard one Black South African get angry about that usage of “Apartheid” but I have no idea how representative he was.

  23. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ Daisy-Boo

    I think that was actually raised as a sticking point because the executive director of Pride Toronto is a South African woman (she’s white btw), and I have heard rumours – don’t quote me on this – that partially the ban happened because as a South African she didn’t like the word.

    At the same time Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu have referred to what is happening with Israel and Palestine as apartheid.

    So some people see the term as hurtful, other people see it as a way to show solidarity.

    Incidentally many people have drawn comparisons between the South African apartheid system and the treatment of First Nations people in Canada, to the point of suggesting that South African apartheid got some of its ideas from the reservation and residential schools systems in Canada. So all these things may be more connected than they initially appear.

  24. Nedal Sulaiman wrote:

    Hey Thea,

    My name is Nedal and I’m the Deviant Productions video producer. I’d like to first thank you for including our work in your incredible article. Also, I find your involvement in commenting on the readers` posts to be exquisite. Not many writers tend to continue the dialogue after they publish their work!

    So you obviously heard the news about the ban being lifted. We, at Deviant Productions, just uploaded a video report about that:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al3-kTXFeJ0

    Have a great one,

    Nedal S.

  25. Daisy-Boo wrote:

    @ Thea

    Thanks for the response and the additional info.

    As I said before, I have such conflicting feelings. On the one hand, I don’t want any group of people to go through what we did under Apartheid and if using that loaded word will make people sit up and take notice then it probably is selfish of me to object.

    On the other hand, black South Africans have given up a lot in the interests of the bigger picture. We’ve had to bottle up our pain and anger. Our stories have been silenced, our experiences have been denied. It’s not uncommon to hear “Why do they always have to blame Apartheid?”. And that shit hurts.

    Apartheid is a word that exclusively defined the South African experience. Increasingly over the years, that word is being used to define the experiences of non-South Africans. I honestly can’t blame South Africans who are upset about that, even as I still have sympathy for the other oppressed people.

    I wish I could give a simple answer and a solution but I can’t. I live every day in the post-Apartheid society and it isn’t as post as you’d think it would be. Apartheid was taken off the rule books but not out of people’s hearts. I guess, just once, I wish people would listen to the words of ordinary South Africans. Mandela and Tutu (bless them both) look at things from a political perspective and that doesn’t always jibe with how ordinary people feel.

  26. David Schraub wrote:

    TL: “Many QuAIA members are Jewish and have Israeli family members – I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are Israeli.”

    “I asked a person from that culture, and s/he said it was ok” … check. Minimizing the perspective of the broader Jewish and/or Israeli community by giving superstanding to the minority that already agrees with you = not okay.

    I think that, insofar as Israel is a democracy, and “apartheid” is an allegation of systematically oppressive social organization, it necessarily carries a biting critique of Israelis as people, because it effectively says “you, personally, consciously elect to preserve and perpetuate a policy of racialized exclusion.” This doesn’t occur in situations of individual policies (e.g., calling on Israel to allow civil marriages) because the odds that this is the marginal issue for the average voter, and that they are making a conscious decision of support for it, is slim. But that doesn’t apply when you’re talking about the entire structure of social organization, which is what “apartheid” represents.

    But even putting that aside, I think that, insofar as QuAIA endorses the BDS campaign against Israel and Israelis, it is difficult to put a firewall between saying they object to “the Israeli government” and they object to “the Israeli people”, as their objection to the “government” is so intense that they support cutting off any and all interactions with the people at any level (the endorsement of the PACBI criteria is particularly disconcerting to those of us who still dream of a two-state solution wherein Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side in peace). Whatever else BDS represents, it certainly represents an affirmative step in favor of taking the fight to the Israeli people qua Israeli people. And since the BDS campaign does not, generally speaking, target Israeli Arabs, it really represents an affirmative step in favor of taking the fight to Israeli Jews. (And depending on how broadly one reads “not patronizing businesses that support the occupation” — a clause that uniquely does not carry the modifier “Israeli” — it really could be seen as taking the fight to the Jewish people more broadly. This interpretation that several proponents of BDS have openly adopted, with the tacit support of others).

    Finally, I think you elide the thrust of WEG’s post, which is that insofar as QuAIA draws the conflict along racial lines (White Israelis versus Palestinian POC), it necessarily erases the perspective, history, and experience of Israeli POC (who are, after all, a majority of Israel’s population). For example, I think this population would find quite alienating the fact that QuAIA only demands respect for the rights of Palestinian refugees, given that many members of their community were expelled or are descendents of those expelled from other Middle Eastern and North African countries (in fact, I know that the political parties most active in the Sephardic and Mizrachi Jewish community have stated, time and time again, that their support for any peace agreement is predicated off recognition of and compensation for their own expulsion from their lands and homes. That this request has thus far made almost zero indentation on either the local or international discussion of the resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict shows just how marginal this perspective is, and just how dangerous, from an anti-racism perspective and from a pro-two-state-solution perspective, QuAIA’s erasure of it stands).

  27. brownstocking wrote:

    [blockquote]In the world history of oppression, we often like to attach fixed definitions with specific illustrations to fluid terms. And so our definitions are too small to capture our terms; we have the language to describe our world, but we don’t know how to use it. For example, we attach “American slavery until 1865″ to “racism” – so anything that happens in America that isn’t on the level of the enslavement of others based on race, cannot be racism. Or we attach “assault in a darkened place by a stranger” to “rape,” so that when a woman is attacked by a man she trusts, it cannot be rape. Or we attach “South Africa before 1994″ to “apartheid”, so that anything that does not involve the worldwide horror at South African apartheid, cannot be the systematic separation of rights by race – even when it is. Oppression, racism and systemic cruelty are ideas and machines that work by changing shape. If we hope to confront and dismantle them, we need to blow open our definitions.[/blockquote]

    This.

    This is a fruitful conversation, and I’m glad we’re staying on topic and not being derailed by comments from the privileged representatives visiting. I don’t see how Israeli Jews are being specifically targeted, myself, but this is not a “fight” I’ve engaged in, intentionally, so my antennae are not attuned to it.

  28. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ David

    Thanks for the info and for the links. I pointed out the membership of QuAIA to indicate to WestEndGirl that I understand that Israel’s population is diverse and complex and not all white people – in that even the membership of QuAIA reflects that diversity.

    It was not to suggest that “these Israelis say it is ok, therefore it is ok.” Also I am not sure that it is right for you to refer to Israeli critics of the Israel government as a “minority” – that seems pretty dismissive.

    The reason why QuAIA is concerned with the gay rights of Palestinians and not Israeli POC is because Israel secures the gay rights of Israeli POC, but not Palestinians’.

    I don’t agree with you but I do appreciate you taking the time to bring information about the history of POC communities in Israel to this thread.

  29. David Schraub wrote:

    I think any Israeli would snicker at the notion that “critics” of the Israeli government are a minority in the state. Most Israelis and most Jews are, to varying degrees and from varying vantage points, critical of the Israeli government. But we aren’t talking about an undifferentiated “criticism”, we’re talking about a very particular critique: folks who think that Israel runs an apartheid regime. And that bloc of individuals represents a tiny fraction of Israelis, Jews, and Israeli Jews (again, it’s difficult to imagine that a democracy could be in a situation where its voting majority finds its social organization to be systematically illegitimate and oppressive).

    I don’t mean that as either dismissive or nondismissive — I only mean that to buttress an observation that their position, sincere though it may be, cannot substitute for respectful engagement with the perspective and outlook of the broader Jewish and Israeli communities, which views the stance of groups like QuAIA to be abhorrent and thinks it relies upon and reifies anti-Semitic stances. That QuAIA has some Jewish and/or Israeli representation does not in any way effect that obligation (and QuAIA’s support of BDS means that they are institutionally committed to sabotaging that discussion, insofar as, presumably, trying to understand the perspective of the broader Israeli public isn’t compatible with urging that they be boycotted and shunned). The way your comment came off was as an attempt to deflect a critique of your post predicated off QuAIA’s endorsement of racialized framing which, WEG argued, did not duly take into account the lives and perspective of Israeli POC (I’d add that it also severely oversimplifies the racial status of even Ashkenazi Jews) by claiming that QuAIA contains Jews and Israelis. That QuAIA contains Israelis, or Jews, or Israelis Jews, or Israeli Jewish queer POC, does not have any bearing on the validity of that critique.

    That being said, I’m pleased that you recognize the internal pluralism (racial and otherwise) of Israel. I’m not convinced that QuAIA recognizes it or that it’s position is consistent with recognizing it and providing due respect for the rights and experiences of all members of the Israeli community, however, and that was the basis of the critique that WEG and myself were making. Again, by casting the conflict as racialized White vs. POC, it necessarily flattens and erases the lived experience of these communities. And by QuAIA refusing to even engage with their just claims (vis-a-vis Israel and vis-a-vis Palestinians) — in fact, trying to insure that such engagement never happens by boycotting the parties — these groups can rightfully interpret QuAIA as being overtly hostile to their equal human rights and citizenship.

    Finally, I think it is simply inaccurate to say that “QuAIA is concerned with the gay rights of Palestinians and not Israeli POC is because Israel secures the gay rights of Israeli POC, but not Palestinians’.” The link to QuAIA’s pro-BDS page indicates that their perspective on the conflict is considerably broader than that — they are taking a position on the rights of Palestinians qua Palestinians, not queer Palestinians specifically. But precisely because their approach is totalizing, it is difficult to understand the principled basis for completely ignoring just Jewish and Israeli claims (except that by supporting BDS, QuAIA demonstrates that it simply doesn’t care about that perspective in the first place. Overt anti-Semitism is a “principle”, it’s just not a very good one. And, to tie back in with what was said above, the fact that the bulk of the Israeli and Jewish communities do see the BDS campaign as a manifestation of anti-Semitism up to and and including physical threats to their safety means that perspective has to be taken seriously, regardless of QuAIA containing some Israelis and some Jews).

    Alternatively, we could take a broad view and say that any diminuation of Palestinian rights necessarily impacts the lives of queer Palestinians, because they are queer Palestinians, and thus protecting queer Palestinian rights means protecting Palestinian rights tout court. And I’d agree — but from that standpoint it is simply wrong to say that “Israel secures the gay rights of Israeli POC” (or Israeli queers), because many of the rights in question Israel is powerless to enforce.

    Israel can’t, for example, force Libya or Iran or Iraq to pay compensation to Jewish refugees from those states — that’s up to those respective state governments. If one thinks that restitution for refugees is a right (and QuAIA apparently does), then one can’t simply ignore the refugees of the side onw doesn’t like. Israel can’t enforce their citizens rights to be full and equal members of the regional and international community — that’s up to the regional and international states who can choose to grant or withhold recognition and privileges, or who can hijack international forums (like Durban I) to peddle viciously anti-Semitic slurs while excluding Israelis and Jews from the grounds. It’s up to groups like QuAIA to help end that status of inequality by pressuring their communities and their peer groups to accept all Jews and all Israelis as equals. They do not do this. Instead, they are complicit in the ongoing regime of international exclusion (if not promoting it outright through BDS).

    Consequently, if we’re going to say that support for queer and POC rights cannot occur isolated from other axes of oppression (and I think that’s the right perspective), one can’t turn around and say that the just claims of Israelis (queer, POC, or otherwise) are unworthy of attention simply because Israel defends queer rights qua queer rights. Queer Israelis, POC Israelis, all Israelis, and indeed all Jews have the same rights as all Palestinians — among others, the right to democratic self-determination, the right to equal local and global citizenship, the right to restitution when they are made into refugees, the right not to be subjected to bigoted and prejudiced treatment. Neither Israel, nor Palestine, nor anybody else can secure all these rights for everybody on their own, which means that a commitment to securing them must be directed at many parties, not just one. Unfortunately, Jewish membership or not, QuAIA isn’t interested in this project — which is one of the reasons why most Jews find groups like QuAIA appalling, and why it’s important to not give into the temptation to give a few amenable Jews superstanding at the expense of the whole. That the bulk of the Jewish community has a strong perspective on this issue should be a clue that we have something important to say and that we sense a real and emergent threat to our equal human dignity.

  30. Sara wrote:

    @Thea Lim

    I would consider any queer/trans pro-palestinian organization a minority simply due to the relative numbers of activists interested in Palestine compared to the number of those whose activism deals specifically with the intersection of institutionalized racism/segregation and queer/glbtqqia identity. I don’t think David meant that they were a minority in that their voices didn’t matter or that the majority of people don’t think like them.

    In general (not @Thea)

    Any organization that wants to solve one of the most complex conflicts in the world by cutting off diplomatic relations has more problems than a potentially offensive name.

    I do see where Israeli Jews are being targeted by this group, and it begins with its assumption that Israel was founded by European Jews coming to steal the land of the POC Arabs.

    Long and short, there is occupation and there is violation of the UN orders, there is a very real apartheid occurring in Israel against the Palestinian people. But whitewashing the racial diversity and historic Jewish inhabitants of Israel so it is easier to paint Israelis as the bad guys doesn’t do anyone any good.

    Should the organization have been able to march? I suppose so. But referring snidely to the “pro-israeli organizations” who complained is ignoring the very real concerns they have for this particular group’s internalized racism towards their constituency and who they are/represent.

    I love the landmass that constitutes Israel/Palestine/the Levant and love many people from it. I just sincerely wish the differences between the peoples there and the history of inequality didn’t perpetuate itself the way it does.