Black resistance and Palestinian solidarity

In an op-ed piece published last week, Matan Shelomi accused Davis Stands with Ferguson (DSF) of being used by Students for Justice in Palestine to “Blackwash,” or appropriate, Black struggles in support of the Palestinian cause. With such a direct attack on Black agency and Black resistance we feel compelled to respond. DSF and its Black leaders are neither a monolith nor a set of passive bodies upon which others do their work. As an organization working to end state violence and police brutality, and dismantle the system of anti-Blackness, we stand in solidarity with Palestinians experiencing violence at the hands of Israeli forces. We unequivocally stand on the side of those oppressed by racism and state violence, both here and abroad. And we are not alone in this effort. It is from Ferguson itself that we see the bonds of solidarity growing between Black Americans and Palestinians. These bonds are historical and material — built on the streets, in the prisons and through the experiences that we both share

As an organization, DSF stands accused by Shelomi of having a Black-and-white understanding of the Palestinian situation and lacking a critical understanding of liberation. We have been accused of drawing lines of solidarity that don’t exist elsewhere. We maintain that Shelomi’s argument, rather than our own, fuels ignorance of Black resistance and the complexities of this conflict. While Shelomi accuses DSF of “Blackwashing,” his argument is, without realizing it, a prime example of whitesplaining. Not only does this argument show a lack of knowledge about the depth of solidarity between the movement for Black lives here and the Palestinian struggle, but it conceals a number of problems. An example of this limited understanding is the claims of justice within the the so-called “multi-ethnic Israel.” The United States is also a multi-ethnic nation. Simply stating such demographic information belies systems of power and inequality; it does not diminish the fact both the U.S. and Israel are built and maintained by racism and colonialism.

We will not allow ourselves to be used as a tool for the defense of a racist, settler colonial state. The anti-colonial struggle of Palestinians is, in fact, deeply connected to the racist and settler colonial systems present in the United States — the systems which we are fighting to dismantle right here, from Ferguson to Davis. Police in the U.S. are often trained by the same forces oppressing Palestinians in their fight for freedom. The companies that the University of California invests in fund both the occupation of Palestine and the security and prison systems here in the U.S. While services and Black communities languish in the U.S., the U.S. government provides Israel with enormous amounts of aid, most of it military. The realities of violence extend across geographic lines, and so must our solidarity.

While Shelomi wants to appeal to the idea that Israel is a “multi-ethnic state,” we see that Black bodies are also targeted by Israeli state violence. We demand recognition that the state of Israel has ignored the sterilization and police brutality faced by Ethiopian Jews, as well as the consistent anti-Blackness and racism faced by Sudanese refugees at the hands of Israeli citizens. Not only do we stand with Palestinians in their struggle with a settler colonial state, but we also stand against Israel in solidarity with our Black family suffering in their brutal system of anti-Black violence. Shelomi uses the existence of Black bodies in Israel to illustrate the state’s purported liberalism, but by doing so, renders invisible the actual lived experiences of these Black bodies, which are routinely subject to racialized policing and brutality. For all of these reasons, we, as Black leaders of DSF, stand with Palestinians in their struggle against occupation and genocide.  

Given Shelomi’s charges, we feel that perhaps a little bit of education for a non-Black audience might be necessary. Shelomi focused on Martin Luther King Jr. and nonviolence as the only aspects of Black resistance, thus mischaracterizing and simplifying the complex diversity of Black resistance strategies. Black resistance has always taken a variety of forms, from civil disobedience, boycotts and marches to armed interventions, uprisings and rebellions. As a non-Black person, Shelomi’s argument implies that the organizers of this group, a set of Black people, don’t know their own history. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, and, in a civil court case, the United States was found complicit in the crime. As Black organizers, we are intimately acquainted with the experience of having a so-called liberal and multi-ethnic state kill our community leaders — whether they preach and practice violence or not. Shelomi’s invocation of Martin Luther King Jr. is a silencing technique that deploys his name as if it were possible for a single non-violent and charismatic leader to overcome systems of violence and power. While Shelomi quotes King, we want to turn instead to Frantz Fanon, another Black intellectual. In his 1961 book, Wretched of the Earth, he writes:

“The naked truth of decolonization evokes for us the searing bullets and bloodstained knives which emanate from it. For if the last shall be first, this will only come to pass after a murderous and decisive struggle between the two protagonists. That affirmed intention to place the last at the head of things […] can only triumph if we use all means to turn the scale, including, of course, that of violence.”

As an anti-colonial Black thinker, Fanon would call for Black resistance in the form of a revolutionary uprising — a suggestion unaccounted for in Shelomi’s argument. As Black thinkers, scholars and students, we are interested in describing and understanding the fullness of our liberatory history and potential futures, not just the quotes appropriated by non-Black people to aid them in our oppression.

We, the leaders of DSF, stand in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. Not because we lack an understanding of the systems of power at work, or our own history, but precisely because of our understanding that resistance is far more complicated and oppression far more insidious than what has been described in the op-ed criticizing our labors. To Shelomi, and to others who would critique the connections between Black and Palestinian struggles, you are right that we are not tools to be used. We are Black students of history and we have both the agency and the knowledge to act in solidarity with those who are oppressed. We are no one’s tools, we will not be used to Blackwash settler-colonialism, and we will not be talked down to by those who don’t know our history.

Kyla Burke and Brandon Buchanan are co-organizers with Davis Stands with Ferguson (DSF).

For many people, Halloween is a great opportunity show of their creative side. Whether they want to scare or amuse, some folks just love the thrill of having an original costume. The following people are not those folks. Here’s a list of people you most likely saw this Halloween (and will see every Halloween after).

The Healthy Parents

Lit only by the flicker of toddler-carved jack-o’-lanterns and LED candles, these creatures come out once a year to lure trick-or-treaters into their lairs with promise of sugary sweets only to offer them poisonous goods such as mini raisin boxes, bags of carrot sticks and dollar-store toothbrushes. These ghoulish monsters, who are often known to moonlight as your local dentists or neighborhood PTA moms, are known to scare even the oldest kids away with their judgmental eyes and Whole Foods aesthetic. For those going as giant M&Ms or slabs of saturated meats, beware when entering these premises — there is a grave chance of being lectured to the point of death.

The person who wears the “This is my Halloween costume” shirt

News flash: this is not a Halloween costume. Although you are trying to pull off the laidback and chill “I’m too cool for Halloween” vibe, let’s face it — your half-assed attempt at a costume is failing miserably. First, you put enough effort into your outfit to find that shirt. Second, you actually spent money on it when you could have simply gone into your closet, pulled on a flannel and called yourself a cowboy. Yes, dressing up as a cowboy would have earned you more respect than that shirt.

Tim

This Halloween, you’re guaranteed to run into Tim. You haven’t seen Tim since high school. He was only a casual acquaintance back then, but you still have fond memories of working on group projects, and sometimes saying hello in the hallways.

But here he is, standing with a group of friends on the corner of Russell and Anderson. Dressed as a nerd: thick rimmed glasses, plaid shirt tucked into khakis. It’s funny because Tim is actually pretty athletic, which is the exact opposite of nerdy! Haha! Classic Tim! God, it’s great to see him.

“Tim!” you yell.

He’s just as surprised to see you. “Oh,” he says.

You talk. He thought you transferred to Sonoma State a year ago.

“Nope,” you yell. “Still here!”

You find out he’s majoring in sociology. Typical Tim. Sociology is a great fit for him. You tell him you were thinking about majoring in English, but chose economics instead. Better job prospects.

You don’t realize that this whole conversation is horrible.

Tim shakes your hand, and you both agree to hang out more often, not just on Halloween.

You never see Tim again.

Wow!

The cat

Probably one of the most common go-to costumes for any young-adult-aged girl, “the cat” comes in all different exciting variations. There’s the promiscuous cat costume that can be easily found at any Party City, there’s the half-assed cat complete with Sharpie-drawn whiskers and that cat-ears headband from Dollar Tree, or you could go more original and look at your local Target for cat onesies they might have in stock. It was probably no surprise that you saw various litters of black kittens running around in the dark — they aren’t escapees from your local pound, just a posse of unoriginal teenage girls.

The cute couple who absolutely nails their couple costume, reminding you of how utterly alone and single you are

You know the type. They come to every party dressed up in some new, adorable outfit: Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Mario and Princess Peach, Minnie and Mickey. You want to hate them but you can’t because they’re just that in love with each other and if you hate them, you might as well give up on love. Oh well, at least the night isn’t a total bust. You still have those Reese’s peanut butter cups that you stole from your kid brother’s trick-or-treating haul. You need it more than him, anyway.

The hastily made, last-last-last minute costume

Every time your friends ask you about your costume, you laugh. No, better yet, you scoff. Yes, you scoff at them because they should very well know that you have better things to do with your evening, like sit in your little pool of misery and pretend that you, as a young adult, are too mature to have fun. Practice doing your taxes. Clip your toenails. Stare at a wall. Because that is what mature adults do on Halloween.

The day of, you realize that you messed up. Big time. Your entire social status for the rest of the year is irrevocably determined by your witty costume that you wear to the Halloween party you’re being dragged to. You have 15 minutes. What do you do? Depending on the resources you have available, you throw together something ambiguous, something edgy. Good thing you’re so handy and creative. People are really going to get this costume. Roll up some gym shorts, put on a headband and grab a ping-pong paddle, because you are now a ping-pong professional. Or borrow your roommate’s stethoscope and lab coat; be a doctor. If that doesn’t work, no problem. No problem at all. You can, uh…you can grab a, um, grab your bedsheet and cut two holes. The common ghost. Yes. People will love this.

People don’t. No, they just look at you with pity in their eyes, and you think that maybe next year you’ll come up with a proper costume. But you probably won’t. Happy Halloween.

Despite never having lived it, we tend to look back on history in a very nostalgic way. When we contemplate the ‘70s, we think of disco and hair metal bands. When we reminisce about the ‘80s, we remember its huge perms and brat-pack movies. The current era we live in, the Millennial Age, is largely defined by technological advancements and the seeming domination of social media. We now chuckle when we watch older movies in which characters have to turn a knob to change TV channels. Nowadays, you don’t even have to sit on your living room sofa to watch TV.

And yes, with the passing of time there comes inevitable change. But unlike the once-prevalent neon scrunchies and acid-washed denim, the Internet is here to stay. In other words, the Internet and social media use are not fads.

A 2015 study revealed that Internet use among adults in the United States increased from about 14 percent to 87 percent, in the relatively short timespan of 20 years. This depicts a 73 percent overall increase and a 3.65 percent average increase every year since 1995. A related study found that 65 percent of American adults use at least one social networking site. The data ultimately inspires the question of why membership on these sites keeps growing. It at least makes me wonder about the underlying intrigue of social media. Is there a pressure to conform to a new social norm? With the ubiquity of smartphones, is it just a case of easy access? While both possibilities are credible, there may be a more psychologically sound reason for increasing social media use: the possibility of anonymity.

Facebook was the first major social networking site to garner mainstream popularity among adults. With roughly 1.5 billion members, Facebook illustrates the allure of social networking’s ability to foster and maintain relationships. Another recent study reveals social tendencies particular to Facebook users. On average, people who frequent the site are more trusting than others, are much more politically engaged than most people, have more close relationships and are half as likely to be socially isolated. In short, these behaviors indicate online socializing and its positive outcomes in the offline world. Social media sites create a space for people to express themselves in ways that they otherwise wouldn’t. Maybe they are only able to contact certain people online, or they want the option to link pictures, videos and other resources to opinions that they may have. But most important, the Internet fundamentally allows users a certain degree of anonymity.

While our ‘about me’ section provides personal information like our name and occupation, it also keeps us accountable for the things we post online. There is something about digital space that compels people to share their lives and communicate their thoughts to an audience. There is something to be said about the First Amendment right to anonymous speech and social media’s own faculty for projecting an online pseudonym. For instance, many other sites like Twitter, Tumblr and YouTube popularized the concept of usernames, which one carefully fashions when registering for these accounts. It’s as if these social media sites require the invention of an online persona immediately upon registration. While coming up with a username can invite creativity and some fabrication, this process does not strike users as strange.

A 2013 Stanford dissertation cited the suggestion that the Internet may be the “greatest innovation in speech since the invention of the printing press.” It explains that “[t]he rapid growth of Internet communication and Internet commerce has raised novel and complex legal issues and has challenged existing legal doctrine in many areas.”

In other words, near-universal use of online pseudonyms has promoted a culture in which users are free to say and do things they never would in face-to-face interactions. Online interactions have encouraged necessary political conversations relating to civil rights and the fate of our society at the hands of government and corporate greed. As the Facebook data suggest, having a documented online persona encourages political participation, an absolutely essential condition of a properly functioning democracy.

Then how does the perception of online anonymity relate to the growth social media has seen through recent years? While social media facilitates communication between nonlocal people, it has many more features that transcend this immediate need. There are photo filters on Instagram and Snapchat, security settings on Facebook and hashtags on Twitter. There are also websites geared toward anonymous posting, such as Whisper and Yik Yak. These features are extraneous if the principal purpose of social media is to maintain relationships with people we know. They allow us to either embellish aspects of our lives or allow us to express ourselves on our own terms, unabashedly and with no seeming consequences. Somehow, sitting behind a screen gives an illusory sense of confidence for us to publically express convictions.

The Internet is perceived as  an outlet for sharing private thoughts without much accountability, but there is no real anonymity online. While the logistics are unknown and imperceptible to us, we know from media hearsay that nothing is ever removed from the Internet and that there is always a way to trace online posts. Despite acknowledging the cryptic nature of the Internet, we are still compelled to upload our photos and express contentious beliefs.

There are two answers to the underlying question, “are we really anonymous online?” On one hand, we know that the Internet is this black hole of mystery where our identities are not safe. On the other hand, usernames invite people to participate in political conversations in ways that they otherwise wouldn’t, which compels promotion of democratic ideals. In this sense, social media is granting us some security.

Social media is not a fad. It is a fountain of communication that will continue to foster legitimate conversations and diverse means through which we can express ourselves.

You can reach JAZMIN GARCIA at msjgarcia@ucdavis.edu.