Samhita wrote a fairly emotional (which is to say, not entirely fact-based or scientific) post about her unease with the NY Times even referencing the idea that M.I.A. might be a terrorist sympathizer...of course, it didn't take long before a commenter suggested Samhita herself is a terrorist sympathizer (not just for the Tamil Tigers, but the PKK as well).
The accusation is absurd and such a threat to reasonable dialogue, and well, kind of a threat to Samhita as well, as she rightly points out in the thread.
But look, here's the thing: This conversation has repercussions far beyond the details of the Tamil Tigers and Sri Lankan Civil war and M.I.A. The fact that we in the West feel the need to identify who is right and who is wrong in international conflicts, and then if we decide someone is wrong, completely disengage from their politics, is a serious problem.
If we can't, in a feminist space no less, distinguish between the tactics of a group and their cause, or between people who can humanize those involved in a cause, even if their tactics may be violent, and those who approve of violence against innocent people, then seriously, how can we ever have reasonable transnational discussions?
There's just a certain degree of rationality that has to be involved in order for conversations to not be complete failures, and if it includes deeming anyone who shows any interest in understanding the political goals of even the most vicious looking groups a "terrorist sympathizer," it's a failure.
Cross-posted at Pink Scare!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: You don't think she's a terrorist sympathizer? Then YOU must be a terrorist sympathizer .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12023
Well, first off, I would like to say that I sincerely did not intend to link Samhita to Al-Qeada. She shut down the comments and I didnt have time to point that out.
I was unsettled Samhita's PKK post because it drastically underplays the terrible atrocities committed by them, because they're supposedly "fighting for a feminist revolution." Note that I never used the words "terrorist sympathizer."
"The fact that we in the West feel the need to identify who is right and who is wrong in international conflicts, and then if we decide someone is wrong, completely disengage from their politics, is a serious problem."
You're assuming that I have a Western bias, and that i'm snubbing them because of that, rather than what they have done. I dont dogmatically support Isreal's treatment of Palestinians, for example, because I have reasons to not support them.
I think that is fine to discuss terrorist groups motives, and perhaps even find a non-violent settlement. However, failing to condemn their despicable actions is IMO questionable.
Also, speaking of conversation, Samhita's last response to me appeared to imply that Its dangerous to disagree with her because she's an immigrant and this culture treats her unfairly.
I could be mistaken as I only skimmed that comment once, but yeah.
Actually, she called it problematic. That's very different.
Also, you call this line "chilling:"
"I don't support their tactics of hurting or killing civilians, but I do see what they are fighting for."
I have to say, any goosebumps I'm getting are the result of my poorly-heated workplace, not that sentence.
It would be chilling if she condoned their tactics, but to be sympathetic to a group's desires while disagreeing with their methods is far from it. It's not exactly like waving around an M16 and singing "Let the bodies hit the floor."
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I'm there are groups out there that I agree with ideologically but strongly disagree with tactically.
Um, you didn't call her a terrorist sympathizer. You said her sympathy for these people (terrorists) is chilling to you. If we're talking implications, I'd say that one is pretty strong. But for the sake of dialogue, can't we assume someone condemns the acts of terror without actually making them say it, when they proceed to discuss political motive behind violence?
And her last comment, yeah you are mistaken. I think I can see why someone might shut down a conversation when it reaches the point where they're being accused of sympathizing with terrorists. But she said nothing about being at particular risk because of anything to do with immigration. Although now that you mention it, immigrant status probably should heighten the caution with which we throw around accusations of terror sympathy even further than usual...you know, considering how dangerous xenophobia can be without the factor of terror thrown on top of it, it seems logical...
"can't we assume someone condemns the acts of terror"
Usually, except when terrorists are presented in a somewhat positive light, like here.
Also, I'm Arab-American, albeit male. I'm not xenophobic of myself or my people.
For the sake of "controversy", meaning debate, meaning breaking with the "if you're not with us, then you are evil" post-911-fascism, let me say: I do "sympathize" with the PKK. There has been a long attempt at cultural genocide in Turkey. The Turkish state was founded on the idea that it is mono-cultural and only the "Turkish People" existed. That was a myth that needed to be "made real" by banning all other cultures, languages etc including the Kurdish. Until a few years ago you could end in jail for writing or speaking Kurdish. Also in Iraq and Iran there were massacres against the Kurdish people, who have been split between 4 different states of which at least 3 of them have been massacring and oppressing them. And OF COURSE they have the "right" (as if we Westerners are entitled to be the ones who give other people "rights" to live or not) to defend themselves and their culture, just as any other people - the PKK represents that struggle for self-defense and right to exist.
This does not mean that I condone everything the PKK does or have done or that I support them as an organization. I may sympathize with their (justified!) cause but dislike their methods or their organization, tactics, ideology etc.
PKK is not, though, a "terrorist organization". They are a guerilla and an organization fighting for a peoples right to self-determination and sometimes they might use methods that are wrong and condemnable - sometimes even "terror". There are terrorist ACTS, and they can be condemned, but there are very few terrorist "organizations", ie organiztions that only exist to spread terror. If we were to accept that definition, that every organization that has committed condemnable acts is thus a "terrorist organization" then why only talk about the organizations of the oppressed people? If doing terror-like acts was the real definition factor, then we'd also be calling the states like Turkey, Israel, and Sri Lanka terrorist organizations - or at least their militaries. Heck, the US would be a "terrorist organization" by this definition, because SOME branches of the US have committed terrorist acts.
If the definition does not apply to all instances of the same "thing" then there is something wrong with the definition. Either you label all institutions that have branches that have committed acts of terror as "terrorist organizations" and treat them the same, or your are simply lying about your real criteria of definition.
Before 9/11 PKK and many others was not labelled as or considered terrorist organizations. There was an open debate about whether some of their acts were wrong etc but now the debate is closed by the "magic word" that demonizes all non-state actors in conflict en bloc. Something happened when the US wanted the rest of the world LEADERS (ie - the people in power in every state) to support the illegal wars and dismantling of democratic discourse. "Lists of terrorist organizations" were made by negotiations where state leaders where: "we'll support you in your choices if you let us put the ones we don't like on it too". So when you use the word "terrorist organization" in the sense "on a US/EU list" then all it means is: someone the people in power of some state does not like. That is why you'll find more socialist organizations and separatist organizations there than right-wing militias and state terrorists.
By now virtually every Basque political party, newspaper etc is banned in Spain and it is impossible to discuss or practice democracy in the basque region. Now peace negotiations and real solutions between struggling parties in conflict zones (such as Columbia, Sri Lanka or Palestine) are impossible - in fact "illegal" - because one side is labelled "terrorist" and therefore non-human and not something you can speak to, while the other side - the dominant and strongest side, is thereby the only one allowed to talk. This is not good for either side, except if the state-supported side intends to eradicate the other, because if you want solutions you need to recognize each other and TALK.
Using this rethoric is support for whomever is stronges, strangling the voices of the other side. THAT is not a good feminist approach!
PS. I repeat: Being critical of the "terrorist" discourse does not mean condoning acts of terror. Just remember that if the new "terrorism" definition was to be applied consistently then we'd all be "terrorist supporters" if we pay our taxes!
And apologies for my broken English. I can do better grammar when I try harder.
It's always wrong to equate the violence of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressors.
The violence of the PKK is not the same as the far more powerful and widespread violence of the Turkish state.
The violence of the LTTE is not the same as the infinitely more powerful violence of the Sri Lankan Army.
It's morally bankrupt to equate the two - it's like condemning a woman who pepper sprays a man who's trying to rape her - who's "violence" is worse in that case?