APPARENTLY I AM ANGRY

APPARENTLY I AM ANGRY

At a system that intentionally camouflages racism beneath a MULTICULTURAL discourse embedded in a neo-liberal mantle that blames the brown victim

for

Continuing to live in towns abandoned to the neo-liberal turns of economic necessity

Then blames the victim for WEARING THE WRONG COLOUR T-SHIRT

APPARENTLY I AM ANGRY

At the veneer that elevates the Left right and centre

Whilst abandoning those whose land form the foundation of our number 8 wire democracy

APPARENTLY I AM ANGRY

Because nice white folk take benign risks ensuring positionality

Whilst Māori risk life and limb daily in ways nice people will never comprehend

APPARENTLY I AM ANGRY

At us Pākehā who ask what is our commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi at job interviews

But cannot spell Te Tiriti o Waitangi without a Māori dictionary

MOSTLY I AM ANGRY

At playing the white game

Of trying to get ahead and in so doing become something more than I was
But ended up being exactly who I was trying to get away from

MOSTLY I AM ANGRY

At people who say 'get over it'

Yet have no idea what IT is I am meant to get over

I AM STILL ANGRY

With the women I was ready to share my life with but she went straight
For the beating I got and the fact that you never think you need to apologise because it was just me

BUT mostly I am angry

That racism killed your son
That I did not step up and be there for you
That all my shit got in the way of what was needed

I let you down

Apparently I am a lot fucking angrier than I realised I was...

FREEDOM of SPEECH

I am in agreement with Derek Fox. What he has pointed out is bang on. So good on you for saying what people do not wish to hear because racism and colonisation are too hard to deal with.
We have to remember that FREEDOM OF SPEECH inherently ignores colonisation.

Freedom of speech is centre on a small grouping of peoples being able to comment on all other peoples. On their ideas, religion, political hopes and dreams, activism etc. However, if those who are spoken at stand ...up and speak back then punishment will rain upon them through invasion, economic sanctions and it will be done in the name of spreading the freedom of speech and democracy.

Another flaw is the notion that the press is free and independent. It has been proven time and time again that the Western press is neither. It is part and parcel of the political right. And this conglomerate does not present unbiased - independent and free news. instead is upholds racism, drawing heavily on stereotyping, especially on indigenous activism. press stands alongside political party's, mainly the right and vomits out its propaganda without question. If you do not believe me then go read 'Dirty Politics'.

Of course no one should die over a cartoon. But was it merely a cartoon? No it was imperialism at its worst. As Fox so rightly points out

"The editor of the French magazine has paid the price for his assumption of cultural superiority and arrogance, he was the bully believing he could insult other people's culture and with impunity and he believed he would be protected in his racism and bigotry by the French state."
Freedom of Speech comes at a price. For those excluded from speaking it means living in the shadow of words meant to disempower, marginalised and demonise.

For those included in the right to speak - well it is time we thought about the fact that the freedom of speech ignores colonisation.

This possible future of mine

If we want to understand why people take their lives then it is to their words, visions or lack of, spells and incarnations we might look to understand.

A very, very close and extremely loved friend wrote the following piece before taking her life. 

This possible future of mine with no partner and not children, is not the future I envision for myself. It is not what I would choose for myself either. But its seems that it is something I have to accept.

It would be nice if I had the first clue about how to go about that!

I have reached a point where I can see that all over the world all the time people are coming to terms with a life that is not part of the plan, Learning to live with disease, with sudden poverty, with the loss of a child or partner. So I know that this isn't unique to me. which is something. Advance ye soul.

I think that I can accept. I'm not sure that I am ready to make peace. And until I do that I don't know that I will be able to live comfortably. Acceptance only goes so far to create a sense of well-being in ones life. Especially when it's kinda grudging and involves lots of flailing about crying 'why me' and so on. Hokay. Sigh. So for the learning.

R U FOR US OR AGAINST US???

Are you for or against us? The ‘battle cry’  of political commitment or sometimes nothing more than a declaration of war.

If the left loses the war (define them as you wish), they can be found turning on non-voters, utilising trite cries of denigration ‘if you didn’t vote then you cannot complain’. This punitive castigating is victim blaming for the lefts inability to engage honestly with those they wanted to gain votes from. It is a smokescreen for lies dished out as promises. A vote for us is a vote for sanity whilst the political left courts the middle-classes promising them the fruits of the gods and distancing themselves from the great unwashed, yet spouting catchphrases and slogans that make them appear that they do really care about the disenfranchised. 

Well this voter is over it. I have had enough of post-election blame – I am sick of the catch cry ‘if you don't vote you can't complain’ or any of the victim blaming that has washed facebook since election night.

In the 1980’s Andrea Dworkin explored the fight or flight of women in the face of violence in Right Wing women” The politics of domesticated Females (1978).  She explained why many women colluded with the patriarchy - bottom-line: women bought into male stereotypes of womanhood to avoid the violence of men. This violence as many women know is so embedded in society it is impossible find solace from it. Conformity therefore meant survival. She went on to state that unless women could speak their truths about violence then this violence would continue. However, when women did speak they were ridiculed – threatened back into silence, “…buried in a cultural silence”. Her solution - to entirely supplement patriarchal language with a women focused language that identifies woman’s experiences of the world.  

It was this theorising that made me consider the plight of marginalised peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand and the discourse of blame from the left, right and centre . As the great neo-liberal experiment became a permanent fixture in our everyday lives those closest to its fallout - workers, the unemployed and marginalised communities suffered the full brunt of its devastating effects. As unions sold out or collapsed under the weight of consecutive governments anti-union laws, as benefits stagnated and wage increases became a thing of the past a tiredness amongst the poor set in. A tiredness that has become rooted in 30 years of bombardment and the need to survive, to make what little is left in the fridge stretch.

An essential component of neoliberalism is its castigating discourse. It portions out blame on those who have not reaped the rewards of this grand experiment. People are reproached for not trying hard enough, for not saving hard enough, spending too much, not spending enough and not understanding the long term goals of tightening their belts. Just listen to Mike Hosking’s who between whinny breaths, blames the poor for a) not investing in housing and b) thinking that a state house or rented property is theirs to call home. ‘Tut tut’ he says ‘…you have misread the fine print, a home is a white middleclass man’s castle - be away with you’.

30 years of being punished many New Zealanders have become a silent, like an abused child – afraid to raise their heads to high. Linda Tirado in Hand to Mouth points out: “Living on minimum wage… means being on your feet for eight hours at a stretch, having to ask permission to go to the loo and walking miles to work if your car breaks down. Worse than all of this, however, is the assumption made by wealthier people that Tirado and her peers just aren't trying hard enough.” Dammed if you do dammed if you don’t.

Returning to Andrea Dworking’s argument - fear of violence – violence that has become embedded in society for centuries brings about a state of fight or collaboration.  The only hope was the recalibration of language in the hope that all women’s voices could be included and heard. Until this occurred women had only two choices - fight or collaborate. Those of us who call ourselves social justice activists need to take up a similar challenge. We need to cease blaming the poor for our loss. We need to rethink how we speak our truth and the truths of those we fight with and for. Our language needs to be one of inclusion.

Community groups 'fear speaking out'

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/259785/community-groups-%27fear-speaking-out%27

Just want to say that many community groups do not wish to speak because they are not political. This began in the 80's under the auspicious title 'professionalism'. Once upon a time in a land called activism those who worked in community groups came from the communities they lived in or had dealt with issues that they now worked with - eg: alcohol and drug addiction.  As the govt cut back on funding and did so via the demand that those in community orgs needed qualifications to prove they could work with their own communities, the depoliticised middle classes moved in and took over many positions now made empty whilst the 'uneducated' tried to deal with educating themselves. Those organisations who continued to engage politically where starved of funding.

Yes groups stood up but many did not resist and  it was easier not to do as peoples lives depended on the income. And that is were the problem continued to create less politicised community groups. As these qualified community directors cried we are worth more because we are qualified this became louder then we are here for our communities! Why, because in many cases they were not part of the communities they were working for.

And I am not speaking empty here I worked for Rape Crisis - yes for a very short time and watched as women in that organisation made decisions that were about increasing wages and NOT engaging in political work - yes there was an air of the political work but was - as it is now in many community groups now - watered down.

I worked for 10 years in various community based roles - one of the reasons I left - like so many others at the time - was because I was being sanctioned by my bosses because they were afraid of jeopardising our funding - and one of the main reasons was because collectives began employing co-ordinators who then became known as directors (gave us status so I was told) and these directors demanded wages that reflected their expertise and qualifications.

So yes the govt certainly anted community groups to shut the fuk up but many of those groups were happy to comply - I remember saying to people - what would happen if we all just did not comply but kept doing the work?http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/259785/community-groups-%27fear-speaking-out%27

I've been internalising a really complicated situation in my head...

How do those of us who experience such horrendous situations as homicide - rape - sexual abuse - continue to stay mentally capable especially when the personal experience then collides with the political understanding of the situation we find ourselves living through?

Take for example Jordan's murder. As a young Māori rangatahi his death crippled his whanau. But his death also spoke about this county's attitude to poverty, discrimination, colonisation and racism.
The marrying of the personal horror of such a horrendous event with the political fabric that underpinned his death - the racist courts that failure to dish out justice due to centuries of institutional racism - the poverty - colonisation - violence in society from males towards males - classism - joblessness - the devastation of small rural communities and issues of masculinity - meant that whilst I sat in court wanting nothing more than to rage against the gang member that killed him another pat of me would look with horror on the complexity of all that was.

Sexual abuse - the personal effects of abuse can be long lasting and for many the scars are so deep they may never fully heal. but when some of us mostly those of us who are politically minded towards social justice begin to unpack the issues that rest around and behind abuse we can again find ourselves in a grey spoace were an ongoing battle between

 yet our political analysis means we demand justice for the victims and the perpetrators - yet silently wish our own fathers to be beaten to death. Or spend years living with the guilt of leaving our siblings behind as we finally made it out the gate.
These issues are constant in my life but have been fully reignited after watching The Poker House - the intersection of the political and personal is mindfucking for those of us who have and do live on both sides of the political and personal.
I know there are no simple answers - those who follow that road do us the victims of these horrendous life experiences an injustice and if the answers were that simple well there would be only one group needed SST (yes I think sst is devoid of any political analysis of the complexity of some peoples lives mainly Māori - poor - queer - women's lives) - so I realise there is no bandage to place on such open wounds - just thinking aloud as FB allows.
I am trying to work through this dilemma as part of a book I am trying to write

THE PERSONAL IS ALWAYS

Then this morning I was watching some wankie psychologist prattle on about how parents just need to say NO to their children asking persistently for toys they really do not need. This she suggested would lead to well-rounded young people who could determine between ‘want’ and ‘need’. As I yelled at the TV I wondered how the FUK these people (psychologists) get away with such simplistic bullshit. Oh that’s right the premise rest solely on the individual being ‘fully’ responsible for themselves – (there is no outside force acting on the child’s desire) in this case it is the PARENT (aka mother) who must tame the demanding beast (aka child) of its desires.

Question: if the parent is successful in taming said desires, how the fuk did we all end up with credit cards CONSUMING?

Oh that’s right we ignored the underlying issues of capitalisms need for consumerism instead focusing solely on the individual and blaming the parent for the screaming child.

Fuking bollix. This obsession with blaming the individual as if the individual is free of all political influences is fukin annoying. But just the other day I found myself doing similar after watching - The Poker House. I immediately to OMG what a bitch of a mother – how could you do that…blah blah blah…

See yesterday as I lay quietly dying in my bed I decided to watch one of Jennifer Lawrence’s other movies.  The story is based on Lori Petty's (actress) teenage years.

Agnes is a 14 year old girl, aspiring basketball player with straight As. She has 2 younger sisters which she tries to protect from the life her mother leads. Her mom is a prostitute who brings home different men every night. Her pimp comes in and smacks her around takes whatever money she has and she takes it because she is in love with him. Sadly things get worse.

The scene that broke me was not when Agnes is raped NO – it is when she is sittign in the bath after beign raped and her mum walks in and she pleads for a mother thrusting her arms towards her  in the hope that she will draw in and hold her.

No such luck as mother dear is a selfish uncaring woman with a heroine addicted - not a mother – to get the full picture you have to see the movie.

Of course my initial reaction to that moment was informed from my own personal experiences of unloving parents. My reaction to the movie was primal / personal devoid of any political analysis of the hardship our working class parents go through – my answer at that moment was simplistic  just like the wanking of the ‘expert’ psychologist was devoid of an analysis of the capitalist system and consumerism.

Today we are understood to all be ‘ill’ and in need of fixing  because our parents did not give us enough or gave us too little. People are therapized into accepting life within a bubble - sanitised of any political analysis of the environment we live in. the purpose of therapy is to understand ourselves as victims and then our duty is to return to the very society that created our issues and live life to the full. But is life full when we merely see our issues as merely personal? Eg: the parent is bad or the victim needs mending – is that the only answer? I would argue that it is not.

Of course it is unacceptable to harm our children in the ways many of us have been harmed and many children will be harmed today or tomorrow. But should healing be devoid of any political analysis? Once upon a time in a far off century Rape Crisis didn’t believe so – hence the personal is political and consciousness raising groups interwove the personal and the political.  

OH HOW THOSE TIMES HAVE CHANGED.

Agnes’s mother became a junkie – why and how? How can we prevent the Agnes’s of the world from joining her? We of course see in the film that Agnes has something special that helps her move beyond – at least for that day. But what of the Agnes’s who do not have that something special? What of her mother’s recovery? Is it inevitable that she will die? Will therapy help her fit back into a world that has up until now rejected her?

So what of contemporary therapy? Does it not fall short? What are the experts selling parents when they say JUST STOP BUYING YOUR KIDS THOSE TOYS THEY DEMAND? And ignore the underlying issues of capitalisms NEED for us to consume.  Are they not overlooking the new issues of identity through consumerism which children face when they turn on the TV or event their computer?  Remember they head to school where they may be rejected from social groupings because they do not have the latest bag / book / toy? And is it enough to say ‘get over it’ when in fact we all have credit cards so that we can consume whenever and however for whatever we want?
The simplistic answer is to tell parents NOT to buy things therefore the child will learn restraint and eventually acceptance. Bollocks many of us learnt to steal because whether you goodie 2 shoes like it or not ACCEPTANCE into a social group is all you want when you are young. Just go and watch the brutish way the playground is formed and continues to flow and flux. Then visit your local sports club, bar or women’s reading or walking circle and see who is in or out.

Neither of the two issues can be answered with simplistically because both are part of the fabric of a sexist, racist classist society.   Both issues are part and parcel of people’s everyday lives and whilst some young people will rise above and win over their personal experiences not all of us did. Whilst I am not suggesting that we drag our kids through political fire, so as to understand why someone raped them or denied them toys therefore ‘othering’ them,  I do think that psychologists who wank on about such issues need to remind us all that there is no one size fits all and that our personal issues are also poltical. By not doing so we continue to weave a false sense of society and we continue to merely focusing on the personal we create a society devoid of analytical analysis for change. These people have power and they are misusing it and doing people more damage. By

The women who became an addict and abused or allowed her children to be abused has a past and that past is formed just like her children’s within a society that exists on hierarchy’s male dominance over female liberation – women are still being raped NOT because men are biologically rapists but because society still tolerates rape. Crime is created by denying things to our children in a society that sets double stands – deny - deny - deny – but when you are old enough - get a credit card and buy - buy - buy and in so doing become somebody.

THE PERSONAL IS ALWAYS POLITCAL AND THE POLITICAL IS PERSONAL