I wish to address the recent open letter written by Lauren Chief Elk to Eve Ensler. In it, Lauren Chief Elk alleges that Eve Ensler's organization, V-Day, "bulldozed" Indigenous women in Canada and accuses it of being “racist and dismissive of Indigenous people.” As I am intimately involved with V-Day and was the Coordinator of the One Billion Rising (OBR) campaign in Canada, and no effort was made to discuss this issue with me before this letter was written and published, I am compelled to address it. The first allegation made against us is that a photo of a Native woman was used for our National Spotlight ad image without permission. That photograph was found on a webpage of publicly available photos. The decision to use that photo was solely mine and had anyone contacted us requesting its removal from our Facebook page, it would have been done immediately. That did not happen. To the contrary, Ashley Callingbull herself remarked on the photo, stating on January 18, “Amazing to see my photo being used to empower women!” The photo, a powerful image of Ashley with a man's hand covering her mouth, represented the Native women who have disappeared or been murdered but whose voices have fallen on the deaf ears of law enforcement and the justice system. It was not a suggestion that Native women cannot speak for themselves or do not have autonomy. It was an indictment of the disturbing fact that for many years, the disappearances and deaths of these women have been met with a response tantamount to “Your voices do not matter”.
The second allegation – one which stunned me to the very core – was that OBR Canada was dismissive of Indigenous women. It is almost difficult to know where to begin to address a comment so shocking and unfounded.
In January of this year, a representative of the Women's Memorial March (WMM) reached out to OBR requesting, due to the history of the WMM on February 14th, that OBR Canada highlight and promote these events in tandem. Together, on a call with Eve Ensler and the representative of the WMM we had a very positive conversation about OBR highlighting the ongoing injustice toward Native women, a call that was followed shortly thereafter by an email from the organizers reiterating their support of the creation of the Spotlight. All OBR organizers in cities that host WMM reached out to the local march organizers in their towns. The organizer of OBR Vancouver – birthplace of the WMM – informed me of a mutually supportive exchange going on between her and the march organizers there.
Unfortunately, OBR Toronto's attempt to reach out to the local WMM was not met with the same camaraderie. Our intention was to connect, promote, and increase awareness of both events, however despite the initial support of WMM, some negative comments began to surface on Facebook. These comments became increasingly hostile as OBR gained momentum, specifically about the overlap in start times for the Toronto WMM and OBR's community rally. OBR's rally had been booked for the noon-2pm slot at Nathan Phillips Square, that time had been allocated to us by city council and was unchangeable. In order to raise as much awareness as possible, we recognized both events as risings in our city and promoted the Toronto WMM, encouraging people to support one or both events.
Despite these efforts to work together, some members of the February 14th Organizing Committee began publically accusing OBR of trying to usurp the WMM by having an event with a Spotlight on Native women on the same day. This accusation was made despite the fact that it was a representative of the committee that had asked OBR to spotlight Native women. The idea of protest through dance was called meaningless and "not real feminism". Does “real feminism” not advocate for and extole choice? Who ever stated that bringing attention to violence against women could only be done in one way? You march, we dance. We are all women exercising freedom of expression, no? **
Lauren Chief Elk claims in her letter that criticisms of OBR Toronto and OBR Canada on our Facebook walls were erased. While we absolutely encourage discussion and debate on the pages, when constructive criticism disintegrated into deliberately hurtful rhetoric, those comments were most certainly taken down. As OBR Coordinator for the region, I would not condone having the hard work being done by activists in over 100 locations across the country subject to undue vitriol on our own pages.
What became very clear to us is that the Toronto WMM's support for OBR was predicated on one very specific thing – us choosing to attend their march and abandon the planning of our own OBR events. For us this was not an option. OBR Canada was rebuked for holding our event on an “iconic” day for Native women, because the WMM has been taking place annually in Toronto on that date for eight years. V-Day events have been held around the world on February 14th for fifteen years. V-Day is in part named for Valentine's Day – it is a very significant date for the organization. Thousands of V-Day events take place on February 14th every year, however V-Day would never ask or expect another group – especially an anti-violence initiative, to not hold events on that day. Lauren Chief Elk said that when V-Day's managing director was told about the special meaning of that date for Aboriginal women in Canada, she stated that “every date on the calendar has significance”. Lauren Chief Elk then said that “this is not an acceptable response”. It was absolutely the best and truest response.
EVERY date on the calendar WILL have significance to a particular group. One Billion Rising was not a Canadian event. It was a global event, occurring simultaneously in 207 countries. Valentine's Day, being the “birthday” of V-Day, was chosen as the date for this global action. Which date on the calendar would NOT have had special meaning to a specific group somewhere in the world? We could have held OBR on January 23 or October 9 or today, and there would a group of people somewhere on Earth for whom that day would already be associated with a special or sacred observance. No singular group can claim ownership of a date.
Lauren Chief Elk stated that being a good ally to Aboriginal women would have meant “stepping back, giving up the V-Day platform, and attending the marches and vigils. It would have meant putting aside the One Billion Rising privilege and participating in what the Indigenous women felt was important.”
But Lauren Chief Elk was personally quoted in media outlets supporting One Billion Rising.
Indian Country Today – “My co-founder; Jessa Rae Growing Thunder, decided we needed to put out a call to action to Indian Country to rise on V-Day, because what better way for us as people to stop violence against us than to dance it away. Dancing is how we heal, pray, socialize and tell stories so it's important for us to include our voice in 1 Billion Rising. All Nations Rising was created so people could find out what events were happening in their community, or post their events for others to see.” - Lauren Chief Elk, co-founder of Save Wiyabi Project.
Public Radio International - Q: Do you think this project will have impact beyond today?
A: I think for Indian Country it will. Indigenous women's voices in Canada and in the U.S. are finally being heard and I think this movement will only inspire us to take more action in our own communities. – Lauren Chief Elk
One Billion Rising was not solely about Aboriginal women. Yes, we were and are very supportive of our Indigenous sisters. That is a given. This movement has for the last 15 years raised money for women's shelters in Canada, including many Aboriginal women's shelters. OBR Canada, at the request of the WMM and with shared horror at the injustice for the Stolen Sisters, chose to try to bring increased attention to this issue because we believe to the core that violence committed against our country's First Nations women is violence against the Mothers of our nation. However, our focus is broader than one community. One Billion Rising was and is about acknowledging and standing up against violence perpetrated on ALL women, everywhere on the planet. One Billion Rising is its own distinct movement, with its own distinct voice. Lauren Chief Elk speaks of us showing disrespect by holding an event at the same time as the WMM – what about respect for the other women who OBR represented? To have cancelled our events or made OBR strictly about marching with the Memorial March would have been to betray the very mandate of OBR. It was about EVERY woman. How would cancelling our events to focus solely on Native women have shown anything but disrespect for non-Native women, whose experience of violence is equally real?
In an attack that was shockingly personal, Lauren Chief Elk referred to Eve Ensler's “white, colonial feminism” and stated that “I do not want to be part of the white savior industrial complex”. As someone who has been part of V-Day for 7.5 years, I can say with more vehemence than I have ever spoken with in my life that the person you describe is NOT Eve Ensler. Nor is the organization that you describe V-Day – in ANY way, shape or form. It is bizarre that these comments would be made about an organization that just held the most multinational, culturally diverse action EVER to end violence against women.
OBR was spearheaded around the world by women of ALL races, extending themselves in community and in love to other women. I headed OBR in this country. I am a Black Canadian of Caribbean descent. The head of OBR Toronto is Iranian, the majority of the Toronto committee Middle Eastern and South Asian. Caucasian women were by far the minority, but were our staunch sisters in the cause and gave as much of their hearts and their commitment to the OBR mandate as anyone else. We mistreated Aboriginal women? Really? To cite the historical implications of colonialism, as you did, is always valid and Eve Ensler speaks constantly of this reality and its devastating effects on an international scale. However to imply in any way that anything other than a call to basic humanity is behind V-Day is profoundly incorrect and misinformed. With regards to “One Billion Rising privilege” -- what is that, exactly? The majority of OBR Coordinators and activists around the world, Lauren Chief Elk, are brilliant women (and men) - from across Asia, Africa, Central and South and North America, and Europe. Are you saying that they are the bamboozled minions of a racist, insincere organization? Or are they intelligent women of various races and cultures, also with their own agency, who have chosen to work for and with a movement that embodies the virtues of justice, fortitude, compassion and perseverance?
As someone who has met many of these women, and who has witnessed Eve Ensler learning from them, communing with them, embracing them, crying with them, shouting loudly with them and marching with them, I can inform you that they are the latter. Your impressions of V-Day, its staff, its activists and its founder are – quite simply – wrong. To direct anger at a movement fuelled by women of every race, who have given their time and talents to fighting the victimization of women on every corner of the globe, is stupifying to me. And to suggest that Eve Ensler is somehow misguided, naive or destructive by sheer nature of her race is heartbreaking, to say the least. It confounds me that such a comment, one steeped in racism itself, could be made while accusing her and V-Day of the same thing. It is one thing to say “I didn't like that this thing happened.” It is quite another to attack someone's life's work, and their very moral fibre. To incorrectly and publicly label someone as racist – one of the ugliest things a human being can be – is an attempt at character assassination, pure and simple. For ANY conscious feminist to suggest that Eve Ensler is creating more violence in the world is egregious. Would Lauren Chief Elk have criticized another woman, doing exactly the same grassroots work around the globe, who was NOT white?
You accuse Eve, V-Day and OBR of racism and dismissiveness towards Aboriginal women. It is ironic and sad that a person claiming to speak up for justice could make the most unjust statement I have ever heard.
I would never say that I can truly know the pain that Indigenous women in Canada feel at having fought for the Stolen Sisters for so very long. It is a national travesty on an epic scale. Now 20 years in to the annual WMM in Vancouver, there is still no justice. I can however understand, on a very personal basis, the experiences of both violence against women AND racism. I would never, EVER, align myself with an organization that was not deeply committed – at a cellular level – to passionately fighting both.
Peace & Progress,
Tanisha Taitt
National Coordinator | Canadian Region
One Billion Rising
____________________________________
** The original version of this letter stated that members of the February 14th Organizing Committee (the organizers of the March) contacted VAW organizations aligned with OBR and asked them to withdraw their support for the event. We have recently learned that while these efforts did exist, they were not instigated by the February 14th Committee but by other parties. Sincere apologies for the inaccuracy of that statement and any upset or misrepresentation that it caused.
if eve ensler or her organization were serious about listening and learning from women then she is obligated to not hold special events that conflict with local grass roots events.. she is obligated to join those events and to position het self and her organization into one of followership not leadership... to do otherwise is coloniialism in as much as eve and her organization are dictating to local communities what is and will be done for them vs. supporting their local efforts of what is in place already... eve needs to rethink her business model... it is steeped in colonialism and western ideals that conflict with local values of the women they wish to help...
ReplyDeleteDid you actually read this response? One Billion Rising was a GLOBAL event. Its date was not chosen based on what was going on in one particular country, Canada or otherwise.
DeleteCan you please cite an example of V-Day "dictating" to anyone? The only attempt at dictating that has taken place is people trying to dictate to V-Day when they can and cannot hold their events.
I would like examples of how V-Day's business model, which I presume you have extensive knowledge of if you are referring to it, is "steeped in colonialism and Western ideals." I would also be very curious to find out what "Western ideals" are exactly, since based on your comment they are apparently wholly and inherently negative.
Do your own homework. I'm not responsible for your education.
DeleteThis is clear to me:
Lauren Chief Elk stated that being a good ally to Aboriginal women would have meant “stepping back, giving up the V-Day platform, and attending the marches and vigils. It would have meant putting aside the One Billion Rising privilege and participating in what the Indigenous women felt was important.”
I could not agree more with Lauren Chief Elk
And I could not disagree more. Basically, what Lauren Chief Elk wanted was for OBR to not be OBR. She has every right to not agree with its mandate. She does not have the right to then try to force it to adopt her particular ideology, and then slander it for not doing so.
DeleteI did not asked you to educate me. I asked you to back up your point and see that you have elected not to. That is fine. Be well Lizzi.
A heartbreaking scenario. When it comes to the fight for Human decency and social progress, there seems always to be a concurrent Human inability to join together without factions; without individuals or groups who feel slighted by assistance offered to anyone other than themselves, or indignation over the (perceived) perception that their suffering is not 'the greatest suffering'. In cases such as these, no real solace can be achieved. For anyone involved.
ReplyDeleteIn my own experience, V-Day has always been, and continues to be, one of the brightest beacons of light and hope for the empowerment of women worldwide. All women. I have personally stood shoulder to shoulder at V-Day events in Toronto over the previous 6+ years, with women of all races, all nationalities (First Nations included), and have shared powerful connections, indeed - a spiritual sisterhood that transcends race.
In light of those experiences, I was so profoundly disappointed and saddened to read Lauren Chief Elk's declaration that in order to honour WMM, all V-Day events should have taken a step back, "giving up the V-Day platform, and... putting aside the One Billion Rising privilege." The insinuation that one particular group of women and girls should hold superior status as 'more deserving' on this date is heartbreaking. Rather than share the power of standing for social justice together in our beautiful and different ways on February 14th (whether we choose to attend a WMM event or a OBR event -- or any other global event which fights to end violence against women, for that matter), there seem instead to have been a hierarchy which somehow justified the bullying of those who chose to support any women’s right event other than WMM march on that date. The truth is that two(+) groups of women marching/rising/standing to end violence, can never dilute one other’s message--on the very contrary.
There is a poignant passage from the writings of the Dalai Lama that would seem apt to consider in the wake of such divisive allegations.
ON HUMAN FAMILY
"Whether we like it or not, we have all been born on this earth as part of one great human family. Rich or poor, educated or uneducated, belonging to one nation or another, to one religion or another, adhering to this ideology or that, ultimately each of us is just a human being like everyone else: we all desire happiness and do not want suffering. Furthermore, each of us has an equal right to pursue these goals.
Today's world requires that we accept the oneness of humanity. In the past, isolated communities could afford to think of one another as fundamentally separate and even existed in total isolation. Nowadays, however, events in one part of the world eventually affect the entire planet. Therefore we have to treat each major local problem as a global concern from the moment it begins. We can no longer invoke the national, racial or ideological barriers that separate us without destructive repercussion. In the context of our new interdependence, considering the interests of others is clearly the best form of self-interest.
I view this fact as a source of hope. The necessity for cooperation can only strengthen mankind, because it helps us recognize that the most secure foundation for the new world order is not simply broader political and economic alliances, but rather I each individual's genuine practice of love and compassion. For a better, happier, more stable and civilized future, each of us must develop a sincere, warm-hearted feeling of brother- and sisterhood."
Food for thought.
Some women are class privileged and skin privileged. What's heartbreaking is not to recognize it.
DeleteAs a woman who is neither, and only works with women who do recognize it, I completely agree with you.
DeleteMixellle - as a survivor of rape and savage violence, I can tell you that neither class nor skin privilege protected me from either. Nor the horrific aftermath which followed. Racial privilege IS a pervasive social issue of horrific and ongoing inequality. Respect for that truth is paramount for us all. As is respect for truth and identity. And the truth is, battered, abused, raped, terrorized women have many skins, many classes, many races. Plus one in particular which applies to ALL of us: HUMAN.
DeleteDS- Your "one human experience" thesis is palatable to you only because you are not compelled every day to process your whiteness. For women of color, the consequence of our culture's pervasive racism is that their skin situates them in ways it does not situate white women. You'll do well to respect that!
DeleteI do indeed respect that, wren. Profoundly so. And I acknowledge there was a gap in communication between OBR and WMM this year. That happened. But we ALL believe in a better future. Not only for "white women". For ALL women. Which is why I stand shoulder to shoulder with my sisters of all nationalities, year after year, why I volunteer and why I've found so much respect for V-Day (and attended WMM marches in the past) ... in the hope that some day soon we can end the violence for good - together. I both acknowledge that class warfare exists, and abhor that it does. But to make real progress and affect social change, we must not only respect one another's histories and suffering(s) individually, we must also be inclusive - rather than divisive. We must not present a "this event" OR "that event" mentality, but respect one another enough to honour that "this event: AND "that event" can cooperate and co-exist. True tolerance invokes strength through such cooperation and alliance. I have wholehearted respect for the identities and histories of ALL my sisters and brothers, and I believe that to have a 'global movement' to end violence against women and girls, which is inclusive of ALL nationalities can only benefit our many and varied personal, cultural identities. There was a strong First Nations presence at OBR in Toronto; I was there. We all danced, together. Our First Nations brothers and sisters taught us new dances. And my hope is that we can cooperate with WMM in future, to have even more inclusion. To learn even more. I would be honored to learn more. It truly does break my heart that there is so much hurt here. And if we can take one lesson from this, it is perhaps that V-Day and WMM spend more time in dialogue in the future. There can be no evolution for the better if we do not acknowledge, and learn from our mistakes. Together. Peace be with you.
DeleteThis all looks incredibly painful and I cannot claim to understand all that has gone on between the people & orgs involved - but I still feel called to make some observations. While it might be true that "no singular group can claim ownership of a date" it might also be true that in a particular place & time, a particular community with a history of doing work that is grounded in that community CAN claim 'ownership' of priorities, tactics and public attention on a particular date.
ReplyDeleteThis is a problem with attempts to create 'global' events - they are generally NOT grounded in the day-to-day grassroots organizing that is going on around the world. I am struggling to learn what it means in my own life that I am a settler on this land, and thus am implicated in (despite my own desires) the ongoing genocidal settler colonial project that is the Canadian state. One thing I have learned to be cautious of is my own tendency to assume that I am doing it 'right' because some particular Indigenous people might approve of my actions. How could there be one right way to be in solidarity with Indigenous people when there is no one perspective within or across Indigenous communities? I think that this truth might suggest that respectful interactions require flexibility and responsiveness to local priorities - without flexibility and responsiveness, any attempt to create a global movement will, without anyone intending it, become a process that IMPOSES upon local communities. And that is harmful and oppressive, despite the best of intentions of those who seek global unity. There is certainly power in numbers, a power that OBR clearly wants to mobilize. But there is also power and survival in SPECIFICITY - in the particular histories of resistance within particular communities - and anything that might drown out the specificity is potentially homogenizing and destructive. Not everyone within a particular group or set of groups will feel that way, but some will, and those who do are not wrong. They are just part of the diversity within and across their communities. If OBR is to be anti-colonial, as it must if it is seeking not to replicate violent colonial patterns, then it must find a way to flex according to the calls of specific groups of Indigenous women who have been working since the start of colonialism to raise awareness about - and END - violence against Indigenous women. The notion that it is MORE important that OBR happen in every city it has selected, than that it respond to the calls of local Indigenous organizers is hugely problematic, particularly since OBR has the potential to mobilize many members of settler society, the majority of whom have thus far been content to IGNORE the horrors experienced by Indigenous women. That is a truth about Canada - that settler women, including settler feminists, including settlers of a wide variety of racialized identities, are, for the most part, willing to allow settler colonialism to continue to benefit us, unchallenged. Few settlers attend the Women's Memorial Marches - most settlers remain hostile, or at best indifferent, to Indigenous sovereignty movements,and while many may be saddened when they hear about violence against Indigenous women, few take any action at all,and certainly no action that would de-center settlers. Perhaps, at least in some places on this colonized land, OBR and the vast numbers of settler women who will be involved, are NOT called to dominate on Valentines day - perhaps, on this colonized land, in some places, OBR and settler folk who want to resist violence against women are called to support the Womens Memorial Marches instead. Would that be so terrible? To me, that would not be OBR or the group you refer to as "ALL women" losing something. To me, as a settler who cares about ending colonialism and violence against women (and all forms of oppression) that would look like brighter hope for a decolonized and peaceful world.
I also don't see how the battle to end violence against women and girls should differentiate between 'settler society' and 'First Nations society' in a Canadian context.
DeleteBoth V-Day and WMM have been holding their events - with the intention of ending violence against women - respectively, and in the same time-period, for many years now.
Both are feminist calls to empowerment. Both are about empowering a future for women and girls. I don't see how either event can dilute the purpose of the other.
We're all women. We're all 'rising' to end violence, and truly, in the context of one battered woman to another, the nationality of the broken body and the violated female form becomes less a factor of race than a reality of a truly global war which IS raging, against a patriarchal culture that finds seeds and roots in ALL our communities.
I hope that Lauren Chief Elk will understand that some day, and hopefully she and Eve can mend their fence. Because both are warriors for women's rights. Both are feminist leaders at a time when women who are victims of violence could ALL benefit from a true sisterhood together - irrespective of racial boundaries.
Namaste,
DS
Thank you so much for this post. I agree with your first paragraph and that is the very reason why when we were contacted about making Aboriginal women an OBR Canada spotlight, we didn't even have to think twice.
DeleteThe international aspect of OBR - the simultaneous rising of women from every cultural background in almost every nation - was its profound power. It was a statement that "on this day, in this way, we put aside all else and are ONE. We are EVERY woman's pain, every woman's voice, every woman's hope." That was the ideology of OBR, first and foremost, and it was very much how the campaign was presented. If the WMM did not want to participate in an event on February 14th that was not First Nations-specific, it is odd that they would seek to align with an event that was specifically ABOUT the fact that it was happening in thousands of cities globally on that date.
I also very much appreciate the point you make, which I have also been coming back to repeatedly, that there is much diversity of opinion within Indigenous communities. I know for a fact that there indeed considerable support from First Nations women for OBR, and that is why I find that a post that claims to not speak for all Indigenous women, and then makes very blanket statements about how Indigenous women feel about V-Day methodology, to be highly contradictory.
You are not EVERY woman's pain, because you refer to "our Indigenous sisters".
DeleteIt is only by fully supporting the most oppressed and marginalized such as First Nations women, whose claims to Turtle Island predate any other cultural group, will true emancipation for anyone move forward. We do this by listening deeply to First Nations women and taking our lead from them, and putting them first in our considerations and plans. We need to acknowledge their anti-colonial efforts, their deep connections to the land, and how their indigenous knowledge is still woven into the fabric of their cultures. Instead of being reactionary, Eve Ensler, Tanisha Taitt and the V-Day organization itself owe the indigenous women of Canada an apology. Based on what happened with the recent "One Billion Rising" action, First Nations women are justified in feeling excluded and marginalized, and have every right to express exactly the points Lauren Chief Elk has made. Even though sexism, classism and racism intersect in complicated ways throughout our feminist cohesions, contemporary feminism should not assume commonalities with indigenous women, as our oppressions are not interchangeable. The First Nations are NOT simply one ethnicity among many in a multicultural Canadian mosaic, and as the descendants of Settlers, historical and recent immigrants and members of the dominant society, the sooner we acknowledge our privilege and come to terms with our responsibilities to the original peoples the better.
ReplyDeleteAsking white women to behave like human beings, to not abuse their white privilege, is not bigotry or racism on the part of Indigenous women. Face it: the Indigenous women have been on this issue since many of you were just kids. Hell, since before many of you were born. They've been fighting for their survival for generations now. True solidarity builds coalitions of equals, it doesn't seek to co-opt and control those of lesser privilege, or use Indigenous women as mascots or tokens. Any feminism that is only for white women is not real feminism. To discount and marginalize the valid concerns of Indigenous women in this matter, and the very real leadership they have shown, is an act of white supremacy.
ReplyDeleteAgree with you 100%. Fortunately, V-Day, Eve Ensler and OBR have nothing to do with feminism for only white women.
DeleteLyssanda, the First Nations are NOT simply one ethnicity among many settlers. You are absolutely right. They are the parents of our nation and I believe I said that in my letter. We absolutely need to be aware of the implications of a colonial past; I believe I said that too. If you knew anything about Eve, you would know how many times she has brought the issue of racism and sexism being the remnants of European colonialism to the forefront of the conversation. It is for this very reason why, despite the fact that OBR was about the egalitarianism and suffering of ALL women, we still elected to create the Spotlight on Aboriginal women. We would have not done that for any other cultural group within Canada.
ReplyDeleteAs for "what happened" with the recent One Billion Rising action - the only thing that "happened" was that it OCCURRED. On February 14th. When V-Day events have occurred since 1999. In fifteen years, why has the WMM not complained about V-Day events taking place on Valentine's Day? It was only when OBR received more attention than V-Day events typically do, because of its global aspect, that the allegations of "bulldozing" began.
It is incredible to me that a reply to false allegations of something as morally repugnant as racism would be called "reactionary". A response to an attack on a person's fundamental humanity and world view is not allowed? I can think of few people or organizations who would respond to being called racist with silence, especially when that is the very antithesis of who they are. To say that our apology is owed on my part, but not calling for an apology from Lauren Chief Elk to Eve Ensler, is unbelievable. This is a woman who has spent the last 15 years of her life living a nomadic existence in order to fight for ALL women, and who has risked her life repeatedly in the world's most dangerous nations in order to hear from and assist their female populations . This is also a woman who has been deeply committed to seeking justice for Native American women for years. I would be interested in knowing what those who are so quick to defend Lauren Chief Elk's position actually KNOW about V-Day or Eve Ensler.
What I read in your response is that you believe white women who are called out on racist behaviour get to declare what is and isn't racist, but Indigenous women do not have that right. You are assuming that your experience of Ms. Ensler and V-Day is the only correct one, and the Indigenous women's experience is a "false accusation." (!) As a woman, don't you realize how insulting that is? You are also doing the classic racist thing of declaring that being called out on a racist behaviour is worse than being subjected to racism. Again, that is privileged and insulting.
DeleteI'm sure you're annoyed and upset by what you're hearing about this, but try and think for a moment what it's like for the Indigenous women. I am also a white woman, and what I'm seeing here is a manifestation of white supremacy. Not the cross-burning kind, but the unconscious kind. I'm not saying that any of you set out to do something racist; of course you want to think of yourselves as people who would never do such a thing. But part of unlearning white privilege is learning to listen humbly to those who are aware of parts of this that we simply aren't. By dismissing the voices of Indigenous women, you are passing up a learning opportunity, and driving even more of a wedge between white feminists and women of color. It was kind of Lauren to try to educate Eve. That shows a willingness to dialogue. It is appalling to me that she's been met with this insulting response.
Kathryn - a caution: I think that white people, like myself, like you, must be careful about assuming other people's identities. Tanisha is not a white woman, and I think it must be infuriating and hurtful and erasing to have her self and her work characterized in this way. Settler identities are intersectional, as is any other kind of identity. Settler privilege is intersectional, like any form of privilege. We who are settlers need to challenge other settlers to learn about and address settler privilege, but we must be careful not to replicate white supremacy and assumptions as we try to do so.
DeleteKathryn - your sweeping assertion that Tanisha is part of a dismissive "white feminist" point of view is a prime exemplar of a major challenge here. Uninformed reactionary rhetoric, which leads to equally uninformed and inflammatory (false) accusation. For one thing, as Kalamity aptly pointed out, Tanisha is not a white woman. To cavalierly bulldoze her identity, her experience(s) with racism and/or her work in gender equality over the past many years, by declaring her (of all things) a proponent of 'white supremacy' (!) is unbelievably inaccurate - not to mention tragically insensitive. Quite frankly, it also underscores a degree of vindictively wilful ignorance that has become, in and of itself, a real issue amidst this discussion.
DeleteI think an important distinction is being lost here. Kalamity and DS, you are correct, of course Tanisha is not white. This is certainly true of her skin colour, it may also be true of her thinking - though the very liberal-rationalist structure of her arguments, and her defensiveness (and indeed aggression) when called on her privileges and those of her friend Eve do suggest a very 'white-washed' form of thinking.
DeleteThat is speculative. What is not is her settler status, and this it seems to me is the key divide. Canada does not suffer because of a "colonial past"; it suffers because of and *in* a colonial *present*. This is a present where the settler (colonial) population hold the privileges, and the needs of the indigenous population (including indigenous women) can be addressed only within settler structures (i.e. as if they were impoverished settler women) or to the extent that their separate recognition does not endanger settler populations' (including settler women's) privileges, nor senses of normalcy and entitlement.
The basic contradiction comes from the fact of Canada's colonial present; the inscription of settler privilege over indigenous desire. It is the tactics of ignoring, obscuring, and denying these dynamics - from all women", through "inclusivity", to "Canada's colonial past" - which constitute the unconscious racism (the blind spots and selective deafness) of settler feminism. These facts and settler feminists' well developed defence mechanisms against their recognition are, I believe, what form the well of despair driving Lauren Chief Elk's open letter.
Hi Jason,
DeleteNo arguments with your comments on settler status and colonialism - I think we are on the same page there.
But I do think your other comment speculating on whether Tanisha's thinking is 'white-washed' is essentialist (rather than intersectional) and highly problematic. We all have a range of experiences of privilege and oppression and even people with similar social locations have their own unique life experiences and all of these things and more shape our current understanding of social justice issues and our responses to day to day life, including the experience of being publicly called out on privilege. Within every marginalized group there are a wide diversity of experiences and survival strategies at play. When we describe people who act in ways that we do not like as not authentic or real members of their own community ("white-washed") this is harmful. There is no call here to insult Tanisha's identity by even speculating on whether her reactions or thinking are 'white-washed' - those same reactions are displayed every day by people in all sorts of social locations; these are the classic reactions of someone called on privilege. In this instance, pointing to settler privilege is fair and useful - 'white-washed' is neither.
Obviously I disagree Kalamity, though I do accept and acknowledge your view here. Let's be honest, I am a white, European, middle class, man, if anyone should be used to being called on privilege, it is me. Likewise, if anyone should learn to self-critique, and reflect on their reaction to having their privileges called out, it is also me. I try to do both of these things, and I openly admit that I often fail on both counts. But I do not accept that that disables me from calling out others on their unhelpful, self-justificatory, responses, quite the opposite in fact. We must all try to perceive our own defences, and if anything defend ourselves and others against these. Tanisha's response to Lizzie above perfectly illustrates this danger for me.
DeletePersonally, I wish Lauren Chief Elk had not framed her critique on racial grounds, and perhaps I should not have perpetuated those grounds. But I still believe I was both correct and justified to object to the liberal 'inclusivity' underpinning Tanisha's response. I also believe that I was correct to link that 'inclusivity' to a position of privilege and power - and to a tradition of thinking associated largely with white (and male) apologists for power and privilege; after all only the dominant can argue in the name of the universal - whether or not we choose to identify that privilege with whiteness seems to me a purely aesthetic question.
All of that said I will, as ever, attempt to reflect on my response, and yours, and question the categories in which I continue to analyse, engage, and challenge our present world of difference, hierarchy, and exploitation.
In respect and (I hope) solidarity,
j.
Jason, to call someone "white-washed" is profoundly reductive. I am very well aware of the fact that I am black, very proud of the fact that I am black, and deeply connected to what it means to be black. It is for this reason that I feel a deep solidarity with any marginalized group or minority - especially women - why bigotry of any sort is the antithesis of whom I am, and why I am extremely conscious with regards to the organizations and the people I work with.
DeleteI read these posts and marvel at how people have decided who I am, what I feel, what I represent, etc. -- all without knowing ONE thing about me, my life or my relationships. People have ZERO clue who is in my life, what races those people are and what the nature of those connections is, and yet they speak as if they've done a Graduate thesis on my history, attitudes and values. It's incredible.
Goodness. I think everyone who has commented needs to reread this paragraph:
ReplyDelete"In January of this year, representative of the Women's Memorial March (WMM) reached out to OBR requesting, due to the history of the WMM on February 14th, that OBR Canada highlight and promote these events in tandem. Together, on a call with Eve Ensler and the representative of the WMM we had a very positive conversation about OBR highlighting the ongoing injustice toward Native women, a call that was followed shortly thereafter by an email from the organizers reiterating their support of the creation of the Spotlight. All OBR organizers in cities that host WMM reached out to the local march organizers in their towns. The organizer of OBR Vancouver – birthplace of the WMM – informed me of a mutually supportive exchange going on between her and the march organizers there. "
And for the record, this isn't colonialism - neither is OBR nor WMM a COLONY. They are social movements.
ReplyDeleteGood point, but in relation to Canada, they are taking place in a colonial space; this is the important point. They take place in a space fundamentally characterised by a colonial inscription of difference and privilege: settler privilege, indigenous negation. If they take place without awareness of this fundamental character, of the colonial character of the Canadian State/polity, then yes, they do - in that space and time - become colonial events.
DeleteThank you Steph, and that you Kalamity for your response to the post above. We may have marked differences in how we perceive this, but I truly appreciate everything you have said.
ReplyDeleteI am really, really proud to have reconnected in our adult years and to get to know better the woman that you've become Tanisha...you are passionate, articulate, intelligent with an immense sense of justice, and I love all those traits.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your measured and thoughtful response.
I feel that trying to reason through conflict instead of feeling through it is trying to solve a problem in a "male" way. Are we really listening to one another, or are we trying to get our points across? I, as just one women on the planet, want to sit with my women and listen to them. That need is what I take from this. Thank you all for sharing your pain here.
ReplyDeleteIt's true MsVB. I tend to use words instead of my anger and actions because, as a woman, I have been conditioned to suppress myself. I would rather share joy with all females of the world. But I am grateful for TT's response and Lauren's letter.
DeleteThank you Tanisha for your response to my earlier post.
ReplyDeleteI imagine that all of this must be very difficult; I think it is always extremely painful when this kind of conflict springs up in regard to work that is close to our hearts. Some of what I am about to say might feel challenging - and indeed is intended to be challenging - but I hope it is also respectful and compassionate, because I believe that these are things we owe to one another.
Again, I am mindful that I know next to nothing about the full context of all of this.
First a question: You mentioned that a representative of the WMM contacted OBR. I must admit that this statement raises a flag for me. It seems to imply that this contact came from organizers of ALL the Women's Memorial Marches - the grand and ultimate organizers. Except, as I understand it, each march is organized by local Indigenous womens groups. Can you clarify who contacted OBR?
One thought I have had is about the difference between what happened in Vancouver and Toronto. In Vancouver, where I live, there was no conflict of times. Vancouver organizers started OBR at 10:30, and then guided the event so that participants met up with and honoured the annual Women's Memorial March.
In Toronto the times conflicted. I understand you as saying that this was the only time the city would give you and so you had to proceed. But that only makes sense if one assumes that the #1 priority was that OBR happen as OBR, even if that meant marginalizing the Women's Memorial March, an event that is already marginalized in our settler-colonial society. This is a hugely problematic assumption, and indeed I do think it is an assumption that reflects the colonialism that runs through both Canada and the USA - and sadly also each of us who are settlers on this land and dominant feminism.
Here is where I think OBR made a mistake – here I think OBR took a colonial approach to feminism, though I know that is not what anyone intended.
I would like to suggest that when it became clear that there was no way to avoid overlapping times, OBR ought to have chosen to avoid re-enacting colonial patterns, by asking all of its supporters to join the WMM. OBR organizers could have refused to allow the cities rules to create conflict, and demonstrated commitment to ending violence against ALL women by attending the Women’s Memorial March.
But that is not what OBR did. Instead it insisted on going ahead and thus replicated colonial patterns. What happened in Toronto, from what I understand, was a very predictable instance of settler dominated feminism trumping Indigenous women’s interests.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, nothing would have been lost to the movement if OBR in Toronto had chosen to de-centre settler experience - on the contrary, through such an act of solidarity we would all have gained. Because if we value social justice, and I believe everyone involved does, then we DO all gain when settler dominance is disrupted, just as we all gain when white supremacy is disrupted, when fat oppression is disrupted, when heterosexism is disrupted, and so on and so on...
Although I know this whole thing must feel devastating, it is an opportunity. These moments are lessons, if we let them be, on how to move past our fear and defensiveness and learn to do it differently next time.
Warmth,
Kalamity
Hello Kalamity,
DeleteEve Ensler was contacted personally by a rep from the Vancouver WMM. (I prefer not to bring other people's names into my posts; the only reason I mentioned Ashley Callingbull is because Lauren Chief Elk already introduced her into the conversation.) And actually, there WAS an overlap of times in Vancouver. But at the Vancouver OBR (just as at the Toronto OBR), information about the WMM was given to the OBR audience (many of them I'm sure already had it) and because the WMM march was significantly longer than the OBR rally, the OBR supporters who wanted to take in both events then left the rally and met up with the WMM. Those who wanted to remain at the OBR event stayed there. Everyone was able to attend one or both. That was a bit harder to achieve in Toronto, because the WMM here was so much shorter than the Vancouver march. But still, there were people who showed support for both by attending the march for 20 minutes and then popping over to OBR, or vice-versa. I will try to respond in more depth later.
Kalamity: That is so well articulated and thoughtful. I, for one, completely agree with you, and I admire your mind and heart.
DeleteI agree. It's so much more meaningful to have the discourse without the vitriol. One day I'll figure out how spewing venom against those who are actually solidly in your corner leads to any sort of progress, but that day is apparently not today.
DeleteMuch love Kalamity.
I hear you. Communication is generally pretty hard, and communication on social justice issues, which are really issues of life and death, of quality of life and harm – that’s when it gets desperately difficult.
DeleteAnd while I hope that my role in this conversation is useful, I am also aware of how much room my position of white settler privilege gives me to talk about colonialism and the ways in which dominant feminism can perpetuate it, without being seen as ‘too angry.’ I am saddened at the possibility that my communication here is being held up as better than that of people who are angrily protesting harm they have experienced.
I want to honour the truth that anger is a perfectly reasonable reaction for someone to have about being the target of any system of oppression. And I do think that it is oppression that Lauren Chief Elk was responding to. I feel quite clear that it was an instance of settler feminist oppression when OBR held its event in the same city, at the same time, as the Toronto Women’s Memorial March.
Lauren Chief Elk’s letter to Eve - and arguably also to other settler feminists - is a challenge to privilege. Her letter represents an Indigenous woman speaking her truth to power, even if those on the receiving end don’t feel powerful.
Privilege is power, and we who are settlers on this land have settler privilege. That we are privileged in this way doesn’t mean we are not also injured and marginalized ourselves by a host of other forms of oppression, but it DOES mean that our settler privilege plays a profound role in shaping everything about us, including the mistakes we are likely to make.
Challenges to privilege are so painful to receive, but sadly they seem to be the only way most of us ever get moving on the work of learning how to do better. Whatever feelings might come up for us at these times – hurt, fear, anger, self-protectiveness or defensiveness on behalf of our friends and colleagues who share our privileges – these should not become reasons to ignore the message we are being offered, and neither should the tone with which the message is delivered. We can’t get stuck there. Not if we want to move our behaviour and the outcomes we create into greater alignment with the values we profess. Not if we hope to create something better than what we have today.
I actually have a lot of hope that moments like this can lead to change and growth. I have certainly seen many instances where people declined the opportunity, but I have also seen people do the scary, emotionally risky work and come though the other side strengthened and better equipped to try again.
Conversations like this one can be a part of this process. And while we are doing this work, let's please be as gentle with ourselves and others as we can.
We all deserve healing.
Kalamity
This has been a great learning opportunity for all of us. Yet I can't help but notice that there are a few knowledge gaps based on what I have read in the letters and comments, and I think a simple thing like owning up to one's privilege and positionality from the get-go would help tremendously! Maybe this even needs to be a prerequisite for all communication between activists in future.
ReplyDeleteFor example (for me) Eve's opening sentence in her "Statement in Response to the Open Letter by Lauren Chief Elk" implies false solidarity immediately, by summing up the placement of all women on the continuum simply as "markers of identity". This is too reductive.
"Our movement is one that is based on deep respect for our sisters across class, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, ability and other markers of identity."
In the interest of moving toward true equality and equity, Eve (and all of us) need to start owning up to our privilege at the beginning of every statement. Something along the lines of ~
"Our movement is one that is based on deep respect for our sisters across class, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, ability and other markers of identity. We acknowledge that many of us in the movement come from a place of Colonial perspective and white privilege in relation to the Colonized (those whose cultures were destroyed and lands stolen in the name of colonization, from which we benefit) and we claim our responsibility and work to right these wrongs.
(Or something to that effect!!)
Positionality is everything ~ all of us are placed somewhere on the continuum between oppression (ie. surviving genocide and having had your culture criminalized) and privilege (having roots in the dominant society, the Settler/Colonial groups that built the Americas).
I'm not an expert on contemporary feminist theory or counter-racist work, but if I could make a constructive suggestion it would be to learn as much as we can about the colonial method and agenda, how Empire-building in the Americas has endowed those in the dominant society with white privilege, how white privilege works and how the "bubble of perspectivism and privilege" affects everything we do. It is only knowledge and learning that prevents us all from being on the same page.
I am so grateful for this conversation as it has helped me with my own understanding. Also, with much gratitude and love to TT and Eve, V-Day and OBR for all the incredible work you have done and continue to do for women everywhere!
Blessings in Feminine Rising ~