Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
So you know how UKIP said that all the floods in the UK currently are because of gay marriage
well someone’s gone and made a twitter account called @UkipWeather and let me tell you this is pure gold
and my personal favourite
James Baldwin (via authorsofcolor)
this is what I want my philosophical writing to be like.
(quoted from ‘Talking Back’: Counter-Hegemonic Discourses of North American Arab and Muslim Women Artists)
[I]t has been argued that the language of ‘intersectionality’ is limited because it suggests that discrete systems are crossing at particular moments. As Razack contends, the term intersectionality does not reflect how “these systems are each other and they give content to each other” (2008, 62). Razack also proposes to adopt the idea of “interlocking” as an alternative. This alternative terminology, she argues, makes it possible to track “how multiple systems of oppression come into existence through each other” (Razack 2008, 62).
Mason (2002) also attempts to work through this terminology. As she explains, feminist research introduced the notion of intersectionality as an ‘anti-essentialist tool,’ in order to posit how axes of identity such as race, gender and sexuality jointly constitute identity. However, she proposes the term ‘interaction,’ instead of ‘intersection,’ to attest to how regimes of difference interact in the making of subjectivity. She references Ahmed’s (1998) discussion of how racial and gendered identifications ‘collide,’ rather than simply ‘collude.’ Such an understanding challenges the assumption embedded in the notion of ‘intersectionality’ - that distinct regimes of difference operate separately and only come to intersect at particular moments or conjunctures. Speaking of ‘mutual constitution’ then leads to the recognition that regimes of difference form the privileged and the subjugated. Thus, to posit differences as mutually constituted, rather than independently structured illustrates the interactive relation between race, gender, and sexuality. Whether we privilege the term intersect, interlock, or interact, it is apparent that all of these concepts contain within them the notion of multiplicity, of various axes of identity coming together. The debate is about the process or the image if you will (how they come together). Do they meet at a particular point in space (intersect)? Are they inseparable (interlock)? Or do they act one upon another (interact)?
I mentor excluded, marginalised, vulnerable teenagers in North London. I work for an organisation that enables them to achieve educational qualifications and provides pastoral care and support.
These teenagers encounter obstacle after obstacle in their development; abuse, neglect, poverty and systems that appear destined to fail them. I’ve worked as a mentor for three years and I have no doubt that in relation to young black males, the police are an equally obstructive obstacle.
My father was a victim of racist treatment by the police when he arrived in England from Lebanon in the 1970s. I will never forget the raw anger and emotion in his voice as he described his experiences. My parents lived through the Broadwater Farm riots in the 1980s and educated me on the wider context of police racism.
Below is Goldsmiths Solidarity Network’s statement for #copsoffcampus. It’s very much worth reading in full, and, as ever, building active solidarity between this upsurge in militancy and organisations doing difficult and often widely ignored work on police violence and racism.
Last week, months of careful organization and mobilization came to a head as students at ten universities occupied their campuses in support of the HE strike. The last of these occupations, at Senate House in Bloomsbury, was met with violent repression: UoL management called in the police, and the results were appalling, if not surprising. Hundreds of us gathered the following day to defy police in Bloomsbury. We are intensely proud to be struggling alongside our fellow students, and we will continue to do so until we get the cops off all campuses. In addition to their brutal interventions this past week, they have been conducting racist stop-and-searches, arresting ULU activists, and arresting students active in the 3cosas campaign. We are proud to see students protecting one another and standing up to the police, to see the de-arrests and the passionate indignation, as well as the refusal to be divided into “good protesters” and “bad protesters”. We are proving ourselves capable of responding to police aggression and are ready to strike back.
We need to remember, however, that we (as students) are neither the first to suffer such attacks, nor bear the brunt of state violence. Since we are living and studying in South East London, the police’s ongoing campaign of violence and intimidation against working people, and people of colour in particular, is painfully clear to us. The sirens are a permanent feature of life — as are stories of young people locked up or beaten, roadblocks targeting Black drivers, the aggressive UKBA raids, or the constant, petty harassment and stop-and-searches. Not to mention the recent police raids brutally targeting sex workers in Soho this week [http://www.sexworkeropenuniversity.com/2/post/2013/12/press-release-swou-responds-to-the-soho-raids.html] which have also been passed over in silence.
Now that a small measure of this violence has struck us too, we call on our fellow students to actively support the struggles of groups and organizations such as the London Campaign Against Police and State Violence, Newham Monitoring Project, and the United Friends and Families Campaign. The actions of the police last week in Bloomsbury have attracted more media attention than the far more brutal violence committed against people of colour daily, and mobilized more students on the street and the internet than past responses to appeals for solidarity from the UFFC or LCAPSV. It would be nothing short of a disgrace if we fail to point out that police violence is structural and a constant feature of life for hundreds of thousands of Londoners. It would be shameful if we fail to act in solidarity with others facing police violence. Our solidarity is an empty and self-absorbed gesture if we are incapable of extending it beyond our campuses.
In the short amount of time remaining before the national day of action, we call on all Student Unions, independent student networks, and organizing committees, to get in touch with local groups campaigning against police brutality and offer their practical solidarity. We firmly believe that the national day of action should provide a platform for these groups to voice their anger; under no circumstances should the day be reserved for students alone. The strength of our actions from the previous week is a consequence of our willingness to support the struggles of workers and to find common ground with the people with whom we share the universities. This national day of action is another opportunity to find common ground with our neighbours and friends with whom we share this city, but only if we are willing to cede centre stage and organize in a manner which acknowledges that this issue is bigger than cops on campuses. We cannot, and should not, attempt to lead a campaign; rather, we need to be intelligent and humble enough to learn from and support communities who have been struggling and fighting for years with dignity, creativity, and an inexhaustible patience in the face of institutional indifference and token media coverage.
Cops off every campus, and out of every neighbourhood!
Goldsmiths Solidarity Network
There were pieces of my family all over the road. I picked up those pieces from the road and from the truck and wrapped them in a sheet to bury them.
Do the American people want to spend their money this way, on drones that kill our women and children?"
Miya Jan, an Afghan man who recounts the events after a drone strike pummeled his village and killed his brother, along with his sister-in-law and 18 month old nephew.
American reports claimed 11 people died that day, the overwhelming majority being Taliban militants, while the inhabitants of the village refute saying 14 people died and they were innocent civilians.
Also more from the article, a 19 year old man named Abdul Ghafar, who lost his mother, brother, sister-in-law and nephew in drone strikes, which fly over his home several times a day states:
“The Americans say they are here to protect us. No — they’re here to kill us and terrorize our women and children. These be-pilots fly over our village almost every day. They spy on people and steal their lives. Children are afraid to go to school. People are afraid to stand in a group because they fear these planes will shoot a missile at them.”
Page 1 of 38