#in case this is not clear i agree fully with all indigenous claims to land sovereignty lol just not for 'time immemorial'

[txttletale]

fyi i think your use of the phrase "time immemorial" in a dismissive sense may have some unintended colonialist implications to some readers, in my region "time immemorial" refers to a new curriculum that teaches indigenous sovereignty through a decolonizing model that holds space for oral histories. it took me a minute to realize you probably werent referring to that, it made the whole post read in that context like one of the "social facts" you're critical of is the sovereignty of indigenous people on indigenous lands. idk how many people would see that but thought you might wanna know

huh! i've never heard of this usage of the phrase (& was just using it in the sense of the generic legal term meaning 'there is no specific precedent for this because it Has Always Been So' as has historically been used in english law). but i mean that said, like--i don't think that claims to indigenous sovereignty do, should, or can substantively rest on 'time immemorial' (as in, the oral tradition stretching into prehistory). which is not to denigrate the value of that oral tradition in and of itself as a form of historical record but to say that i think the actual case for indigenous sovereignty should be built off the much more recent facts of colonialism (for the same reason that, for example, the israeli claim to indigeneity is specious and the palestinian claim is correct--because 'indigeneity' is comprised of a specific relationship to colonialism)

[comrade-meow]

Dawn had only just broken over the mountains. While most of the women and children on the camping grounds were still asleep, others were already wide awake, huddling together in the first rays of sunlight and drinking coffee.

To a casual observer, this place might have seemed similar to any mainstream festival campsite. A distinguishing factor, however, was that there wasn’t a single man in sight. The sign on the main entrance left no one in doubt that only women and children were welcome at this event: “Men not permitted to enter.”

Women��s participation in Mexico’s 25-year-old Zapatista National Liberation Army, or EZLN movement, has represented an incredible organizational achievement since its original uprising in 1994. On International Women’s Day, the female militants of the EZLN did not fail to meet expectations when welcoming 7,000 people to the “First International Political, Artistic, Sports, and Cultural Encounter for Women who Struggle.”

Two thousand indigenous Zapatista women from various parts of Chiapas state and 5,000 visitors from all over the world came to Caracol Morelia, near the northeastern town of Altamirano, to hear what they had to say.

Uniting women

The event was entirely initiated by women of the EZLN. They planned it from beginning to end, and made sure everyone who attended was allocated a sleeping place, had access to drinking water and was cared for in the case they fell sick during the three days the event took place. Zapatista events such as these have commonly been accessible via invitation only. This event differed from most of the EZLN’s previous “Escuelitas,” or “Little Schools,” summoning all women and children who were interested in the struggle to overcome misogynistic culture.

“What we wanted was to meet many women,” said Commander Jenny, who coordinated the event. “We thought that only a few women were going to come, so we are very happy to see how many of you have joined us here.” Although only her eyes were visible, a smile was detectable behind her black balaclava. “It has been hard work, but we are very pleased to see that there are many other women who are fighting patriarchy.”

The event was not only an opportunity to create educational or professional networks, but also a space to consider one’s health and well-being as a woman in the fight for justice. There were activities ranging from workshops, discussion panels and movie screenings to theater performances, art exhibitions and sports events, including basketball and soccer matches. Themes included gender violence, self-defense, self-care, sexism in the media, sexual rights, health and education, misogyny and childhood, discrimination against indigenous LGBTQ communities, women environmental rights defenders, and decolonization. All of the activities were led and held by women, and all of them were aimed at generating consciousness of gender inequality or the restoration of women’s self-confidence and autonomy.

“Capitalism is not only colonial, it is also patriarchal and racist,” said Fernanda Esquivel, a 20-year-old student from Guadalajara. “To come here and see that the Zapatistas are still resisting and have resisted for so many years is a huge inspiration for me. Being with so many women and feeling united also makes me feel hopeful about really creating a change. In academia there is nothing that can show you what it is like to come here, and to feel and share these experiences in practice.”

Young women like Esquivel have grown up watching the Zapatistas evolve and followed their fight through media reports, the Zapatista’s own communication channel, “Zapatista Connection,” and more recently a Facebook page and YouTube account. Women from a total of 42 different countries, some of whom were already familiar with women’s movements or other social, political or environmental activism, attended the event in hopes that they would gain skills and inspiration from the women’s Zapatista struggle.

“Apart from wanting to amplify my vision of how different fights against the extractive industries are developing,” said Katherin Cruz from the National Network of Women Human Rights Defenders in Honduras, which accompanies women human rights defenders involved in territorial conflicts. “I came here so I could recharge my batteries and take home experiences that strengthen me individually and prepare me for the work that I do, and for my political activism within the feminist movement in Honduras.”

The birth of the EZLN

In 1983, a group of indigenous peasants in Chiapas organized in secret, educating themselves politically and creating an entirely unique philosophy that insisted that “another world is possible,” one that focuses on collectivity, serving the Zapatista community and creating an autonomous social and economical environment for themselves within neoliberal and capitalist Mexico. Finally on January 1, 1994 the group went public, calling themselves the Zapatista National Liberation Army, named after the hero of the 1910 Mexican Revolution, Emiliano Zapata. That day, the EZLN launched an armed uprising, occupied seven towns in Chiapas, including San Cristóbal, and declared war on the Mexican government.

During their brief occupation, followed by a 12-day battle, the EZLN criticized the effects of global capitalism on local farmers and indigenous land. They drew attention in particular to the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, calling it a death sentence for the indigenous peasants of Mexico. NAFTA would be responsible for dismantling collective land rights secured by the Mexican constitution and prioritizing export manufacturing. The Zapatistas fought for a fairer distribution of wealth, as well as the right to political participation for indigenous people in Mexico.

After their initial uprising, in 1996 the Zapatista organization gained constitutional recognition from the state through the San Andres Accords and formed the National Indigenous Council. The Mexican government did not comply with the agreements and the Zapatistas continued to suffer from violent attacks, such as the Acteal Massacre in 1997, where 45 Zapatista sympathizers were killed in Chiapas. Since then, they have peacefully organized mass marches and protests, created their “caracoles,” or administrative headquarters, formed autonomous governance, justice, health and education systems and launched public campaigns drawing attention to continued racism and discrimination in Mexico. According to the Mexican newspaper El Universal, the EZLN now governs over 250,000 indigenous people living in the Autonomous Rebellious Zapatista Municipalities in Chiapas.

Today, the image of the Zapatista soldiers, clad in red scarves and balaclavas, has reached some of the most remote corners of the world. Their movement is now well known for its transition from armed struggle to nonviolent resistance to advance their demands for indigenous land rights and autonomy, which has triggered tremendous support and solidarity from anti-capitalist activists globally. However, many of the major issues for indigenous communities addressed by the Zapatistas, such as abandonment and marginalization, continue to exist in Chiapas and other parts of impoverished Mexico.

Women’s involvement and participation

During the gathering, Commander Marina took the stage to tell the story of the first female Zapatistas, their struggle for recognition in a male-dominated space and their experience of clandestine meetings prior to their public appearance in 1994. “We took our safety very seriously so that no one would realize where we were going. We had meetings in the mountains, these were very important. We had talks on politics, read books and watched films. We studied the situation of poverty our community was submerged in,” she said. “There was nothing to gain trying to demand things from our bad government.”

The backdrop of the women’s movement within the Zapatista struggle reveals extreme levels of violence against women, poverty and abandonment from any sort of federal health or educational institutions. Intersectional discrimination for being poor, indigenous and women was commonplace, and girls were often forced into marriages or sold by their fathers or families. During the opening ceremony of the encounter, the Zapatistas made it clear that women were sidelined and perceived by the community as second-class citizens. According to Commander Flor, even “midwives would charge less when girls were born.”

Their struggle has led the women in the ranks of the EZLN — which comprise about a third of the organization’s participants — to see themselves from a different perspective and shed light on the problematic behaviour caused by gender inequality. “At the beginning, we were not used to saying our opinions, or having discussions. We would all agree to everything and nod our heads,” Marina said. “We had to fight among our own compañeros, since it took a lot for them to understand the rights we have as women. There is a lot left to achieve but we are convinced that we will accomplish our ideals because we are organized, and we are strong as a collective. We have put fear and doubt aside.”

Many followers of the Zapatista revolution were not aware of the key elements that formed the movement before going public in 1994. Undeniably, one of the key characteristics that shaped the movement was the “Women’s Revolutionary Law,” passed by the Zapatista committees in 1992.

For Sylvia Marcos, a sociologist and expert on indigenous movements across the Americas, the emphasis on women’s rights is a defining factor for the organization. Furthermore, she indicates that these rights were claimed not solely for women as individuals, but were “fully linked and interwoven with collective rights.”

The unique transformations achieved by the Zapatista indigenous movement are manifest in its attempt to re-imagine gender and decolonize oppressive discourse for the sake of personal empowerment.

Enduring inspiration

Over the last three decades, the revolution continues to abide by laws made by the autonomous Zapatista government. With military strategist and spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos “resigning” from his activities, the Zapatistas have moved out of the media spotlight. However, the successful turnouts for their events prove that the Zapatistas are still an important source of inspiration for social mobilizations and women’s movements today.

Not simply an iconic reminder of what indigenous communities were up against in the past, the Zapatistas are engaging in great efforts to revise their strategies and continue to create networks of people who resist, especially among women. Though alternative visions of gender relations have flourished among the Zapatistas, women in the movement continue to suffer gender violence and are battling other issues not uncommon in Chiapas, such as malnutrition, and lack of access to health care and education.

The Zapatistas are addressing some of these issues through their own internal initiatives. Part of their collective work towards independence and sustainability relies on their agroecological farming projects, coffee sales, cooperative shops, community kitchens, traditional medicine and tortilla businesses. However, the fundamental purpose of the Zapatista movement is to promote their way of life and organize collective resistance to resource appropriation, historically-determined economic and social disadvantages and institutional neglect, which exacerbate poverty, sustain the governmental elite and destroy local traditions. Much of their work revolves around inspiring new generations to begin their own journey towards deconstructing norms in their respective societies.

The Zapatista movement currently functions like an organization that promotes constructive dialogue, communication and continued reflection on problems that affect their communities, as well as a support network for other national movements, including the water conflict affecting the indigenous Yaqui community, the 43 Ayotzinapa students missing since 2014 and the recent presidential campaign by the indigenous activist Maria de Jesus Patricio Martinez.

Women’s participation within the EZLN has played a key role in their success and ideology. They have made it clear that there will be no democracy without them. What the event last month demonstrated to many of those who were present, was the need to create safe spaces for all women, which allow them to heal and inspire them to continue fighting their own battles in their own ways. “We made an agreement, and that agreement was to live!” Commander Marina said. “And since, for us, living is fighting, we agreed to fight — each of us according to our means, our place and our time.”

[princessnijireiki]

dreamed I was back living in the woods in pa. nascent "apocalypse" days, still very survivable, but the frayed edges of society were beginning to collapse. something had happened to me, I don't remember what, but it meant I had no car & was forced to wander on foot looking for shelter or people to take me in.

I found a house that looked like my old home from back when I'd lived in pa before, but which I knew i the dream had been bought by an old teacher or school librarian of mine. when I made it up the unpaved driveway (driveways there are easily two blocks long) & up the stairs onto the porch, I saw signs taped up in the windows & on the door saying the house had been claimed and "repossessed" for being on stolen land by some tribal nation, and signs for indigenous sovereignty. which is LIT, but there was also a police eviction notice on the door.

I didn't even have to knock, the people inside saw me through the window & the woman who answered the door began introducing herself in a native language I didn't speak. I said hi, explained I was stranded but used to live there/live nearby, and was like, "I love what you've done with the place!"

a second woman came to the door & before I could even ask for help she told me, "welcome, you're already a welcome guest here, come in, sit down & rest."

it was well lit & warm inside. utilities were still on & the home was fully furnished— even though based on the signs outside they seemed to be squatting, it was clear that the former owners had just left everything behind & that this group of native people had been in the house for at least a few months, living their lives quietly & minding their business. someone was cooking in the kitchen. there was a group gathered in the living room/front parlor, listening to a man playing slack key guitar while another man sang something beautiful in hawaiian.

we made small talk after he finished, while I sat & rested on a sofa. eventually the subject came around to the eviction notice & the local sheriff... apparently for whatever political upheaval had gone on, the homeowners just packed a few suitcases & left the area, and were preparing to leave the country. the cops knew that, and didn't seem pleased about it, but when they came by to check on the house they assumed was abandoned, they were mad to find people had already moved in. apparently they wanted a way to tie up the fleeing couple in legal paperwork so they couldn't get out of dodge right away, and the presence of squatters complicated that + made this group the target of the cops' frustrations.

I said, "oh, but I know where they are, though!" because while the cops were looking for ways to keep the couple in town, they hadn't tracked them down yet, but since I was friendly with them & friends with their friends on social media, I knew they would go right over the border into upstate ny or atlantic city, to some sort of resort casino where it would be crowded enough for them to blend in. I told the group if they would help by driving me there, I might be able to convince the couple to transfer their mortgage or deed to the house into one of the squatters' names before they left the country, and give them a heads up about the unofficial manhunt underway.

they agreed, so it was me, the second woman who'd opened the door (the group leader), two or three little kids (her neices/nephews/cousins), the big dude who'd been singing the hawaiian music (the muscle lol), me, and a skinny guy with a ponytail (getaway driver + lookout). we drove to wherever they were, I popped into an internet cafe or a library to get a map of the hotel, then email them asking to meet. they were pleasantly surprised to see me when I turned up & talked about the "good old days" when I was a kid, and once I explained what was going on, they said they'd be willing to sign the papers over because they hated the sheriff, like, A LOT, but they wanted to trade cars in case they were being followed.

we all agreed to that, but then realized there wasn't going to be room for everybody in one vehicle— they'd driven two cars there, and offered us one, but one was a soft top jeep, and the other was a four door convertible sedan that was a little roomier in the seats, but had no top. the skinny guy was worried the convertible would get us pulled over if all of us piled in, especially since we'd have to drive with the kids on our laps + it was about to rain, but that if we just stole the other car we'd be arrested for that as well. I said they could easily report BOTH cars as stolen once they were safe if it came down to that & we were risking arrest at this point just by being there. but even if we dumped the cars at or on the way to a train or greyhound bus station (so we'd at least have a dry ride home in a non-tracked car), we'd have to pick something fast before sunrise, because hotel staff would figure out we weren't guests & kick us out the parking lot + the cops were more likely to cotton on by then, and we couldn't walk all the way back to pennsylvania regardless.

we ended up deciding to take both cars, but I woke up as we were deciding how to split up the group & who all would go in which car + if we were gonna keep the jeep (drive it all the way home) and dump the convertible at the bus/train station, or just dump both.

[philosopherking1887]

(1/8) I’m going to make my argument on anon because my blog is not political. I’ll message you off anon separately as I think it’s rude to engage someone in debate when they don’t know who they’re speaking with, but if you decide to respond to this I ask that you don’t post that message. I want to explain why I feel very uncomfortable with people calling the left and right mirror images of each other under any circumstance.

(2/8) It would be erroneous to suggest that there aren’t parts of the left the deal exclusively in black and white morality, who conspiracy-theorize, and who reduce people to basic identities such as race and sexuality. I wouldn’t even make the claim that these people are a loud minority. I’m also aware people who accept nuance in morality occasionally state things in black and white terms, and in doing so turn people off to their more nuanced arguments.

(3/8) I would argue that leftists don’t consider anybody with antisemitic beliefs or conspiracy theories to be leftist, because the backbone of leftist ideology is wanting to crush things like antisemitism, homophobia, racism, and the systems that support these ideologies. Leftists actively distances themselves from these people, in the same way the feminists distance themselves from terfs and swerfs, stating that these people are fundamentally counter to feminist ideology.

(4/8) All that said, I still identify as part of the left. In the circles I run in, it’s less about destroying anyone who has ever said or done something “problematic” (which we acknowledge would be everyone), and more about wanting to reduce the harm caused by oppressive systems, and convince others to consider their language and actions more carefully. It’s these leftists that I’d argue could actually affect societal change.

(5/8) Let’s say someone’s said something racist. People who I’d consider centrist like to focus on the fact that someone is legally allowed to say that. People who I’d consider effective leftist seek to make it clear that it’s not ok to say such things, thereby pushing back against the speech becoming morally acceptable, but also believe that you haven’t completely morally bankrupted yourself simply by saying a thing.

(6/8) People that I’d consider effective leftists don’t believe that media with morally wrong elements shouldn’t exist, and we recognize that it doesn’t have to expressly state something is wrong for it to clearly be wrong. I personally enjoy media that includes ableism, racism, rape, etc. The story doesn’t have to remind me these things are wrong, because a well written story will present these things accurately, and these things are wrong.

(7/8) What I understand to be the right does not have room for people who want to consider humans, their words, and their actions complexly. Their very ideology believes whole sections of our population unworthy of consideration. It’s this core difference that makes me extremely uncomfortable when I see people compare the left and the right.

(8/8) Are there people on the left who think too much in black and white terms? Or course, but this isn’t an intrinsic part of the ideology, it’s the result of not developing or engaging critical thinking skills. The right on the other hand ideologically opposes critical thinking and complex understandings of all human beings.

You’re right that I was overstating the case when I said that the Left was just a mirror image of the Right. There are some good principles motivating the Left; I have no sympathy at all for the principles that motivate the Right. But I do think that the black-and-white morality, bolstered by a simplistic worldview, is an intrinsic danger of being at either extreme on the political spectrum.

The main reason I no longer consider myself a leftist is in your second paragraph: the people who think in black-and-white morality and reduce people to their social identities aren’t just a “loud minority” on the Left; they are the voice of the Left. I see it from my academic friends (“friends”) on Facebook and I see it from people on Tumblr, where the ideas from leftist academia get popularized and proliferated. If anything, it seems, the people who genuinely accept moral ambiguity are a silent minority who are gritting their teeth and going along with the complexity-challenged majority because they agree, on the whole, with their policy goals. I, too, agree with the policy goals, but I don’t accept the -ist label, the identity as a Leftist, because I don’t share the general worldview.

This got incredibly long (and took way more time than I was expecting), so the rest is under a cut.

In paragraph 3 you say: “leftists don’t consider anybody with antisemitic beliefs or conspiracy theories to be leftist, because the backbone of leftist ideology is wanting to crush things like antisemitism, homophobia, racism, and the systems that support these ideologies.” Probably the biggest single factor that’s driven me away from the Left is the very shallow understanding of Jewish history and identity that I see even from people who claim to oppose antisemitism. Most of them don’t even seem to recognize antisemitism within their own ranks, much less distance themselves from it; as commented by David Schraub, a UC Berkeley law professor, on his excellent blog The Debate Link, all kinds of blatantly anti-Jewish crap can get excused as legitimate “criticism of Israel” (including, in a German legal decision, firebombing a synagogue). Despite loving to insist that Israel should not be equated with Jews when they claim that criticism of Israel can never be considered antisemitic (even when that includes saying that the Jewish state should cease to exist, or that Israel’s actions prove that Hitler was right), they’re perfectly happy to interrogate any Jews who show up at progressive political events about their views on Israel. And, apparently, protest LGBT-rights events partly sponsored by Hillel on the grounds of “pinkwashing.” Ah, there are those conspiracy theorists!

Tumblr has actually been a breath of fresh air in that respect: I’m seeing a lot more people on here than among my leftist “friends” in academia (whom I would have expected to know better) who acknowledge that antisemitism is actually still a problem and maybe you should believe Jews when they say it’s a problem, rather than automatically dismissing it as a tactic for shutting down criticism of Israel. Many of my Tumblr mutuals also seem to understand the apparently difficult-to-grasp concept that Jews, even pale-skinned Ashkenazi Jews, have not always and everywhere been considered white—and still are not, by the people who call themselves “white nationalists.” I’m not sure how widespread this view is, but an idea seems to have gotten hold in some segments of the Left that the Jews are just a group of white Europeans who fabricated a historical origin in the Levant to justify a colonialist land grab. This is stupid for a variety of reasons—the basic ignorance of history foremost among them—but what really strikes me about it is how it’s actually a logical consequence of the simple guiding worldview that seems to be widely espoused by the Left.

Here are a couple of general principles of that worldview:1) The world is divided into white oppressors and oppressed people of color.2) The original sin of the modern world (indeed, of the world in general) is European colonialism.

To be clear: I agree that in the vast majority of the contemporary world, white people (i.e., people of European descent) are in a position of dominance and privilege over non-white people. I also agree that colonialism is a great evil and the source of most of the systemic injustices that continue to plague the world. But I also think that racial identity is contingent and contextual, and while leftists will pay lip service to that idea and trot it out when it suits them, their approach to the history and situation of the Jews, which throws a wrench into the simple worldview, suggests to me that they don’t fully understand or believe in that contingency and contextuality.

I agree with leftists that the state of Israel has oppressive policies toward Palestinians. I also agree that in America, Ashkenazi Jews (which most American Jews are, though NOT most Israeli Jews) are for most practical purposes white. Here’s where a problem arises: part of the reason colonialism is such a great crime is that it displaces people from their ancestral homelands—both the indigenous populations who lived on the colonized land and the African people who were transported from their homes into slavery on distant continents. So, the Left concludes, there must be a great moral importance to the connection with an ancestral homeland. Acknowledging that Jews, even Ashkenazim, have a historical origin in the territory of Israel/Palestine would (a) complicate their designation as white oppressors and (b) raise the possibility that they have some rightful claim to the territory. Now, there are all kinds of ways to dispel (b). You could say that diaspora Jews have been gone from the land so long that there’s no longer a meaningful connection to it… but then that raises the question of how long Native Americans, aboriginal Australians, etc. get to claim that they have been wronged by the displacement of their ancestors (is there a statute of limitations on an ancestral connection to a land?). You could say that it’s still wrong to forcibly reappropriate your ancestral land from people who have moved in in the meantime… but that would be a problem for the argument that Palestinian refugees have the right to return to where their grandparents lived. Maybe you could say it’s wrong to reappropriate land from people who aren’t the descendants of the appropriators (the Romans, in the relevant case)? Except then it’s OK to punish descendants for their ancestors’ crimes…?

It’s easier to square everything by just saying that Jews have no historical connection to the land, they’re white through and through and have never been otherwise, and the displacement and continued oppression of Palestinians is merely an instance of the very same European “settler colonialism” that (according to Principle 2) is the wellspring of all the other injustices of the modern world. You may have heard that expression applied to the existence of Israel; it’s a watchword of the BDS movement, beloved of much of the Left. The Chicago Dyke March borrowed from them the credo that “Zionism is an inherently white-supremacist ideology”—which would be a really weird thing to say if you acknowledged that Zionism (meaning the movement to found a Jewish state) arose in response to the prevalent European attitude that Jews are an “Oriental” people who can never really belong in Europe because they don’t have the proper kind of ancestral connection with European lands. Better just say—as did a Facebook “friend” of mine, a philosophy grad student from a prestigious university—that turn-of-the-century Jewish settlement in Palestine had absolutely nothing to do with rising antisemitism in Europe, because racialized antisemitism wasn’t even much of a problem in Europe until the Nazis came to power. Because apparently that shit just came out of nowhere. He even went so far as to say that any Jews who may have left Europe for Palestine before 1930 out of fear of antisemitic persecution were “alarmists.”

Do you see how this reflects the same kind of black-and-white morality that we see on Tumblr in other contexts (whether that’s telling people that they’re horrible for sympathizing with villains and other Problematic™ characters, or that they must be rapists and abusers if they read, enjoy, and/or get off on fic that depicts rape and abuse)? Acknowledging the origin of Zionism in European antisemitism, acknowledging that the state of Israel exists in large part because of the Holocaust, even acknowledging the correct geographic origin of the Jewish people, might mean allowing moral ambiguity into the situation. It might mean that early Zionist settlers were not white-supremacist monsters; it might mean that Israeli Jews, many of them the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors and refugees from the USSR, are not merely callous racists (which many of them, I’m sure, are), but frightened, and not entirely without reason. Not to mention that acknowledging sources and forms of oppression that predate European colonialism and defy color-based racial categories would complicate the simple worldview.

It’s having those kinds of arguments (over and over and over) with people on the Left—trying to explain very basic things about the history and experience of my people—that has thoroughly alienated me. I sometimes like to say, savoring the deliberate irony, that “identity politics is bad for the Jews.” It is, on both sides: we’re not white enough to be considered worthy by the Right, but apparently we’re too white to be considered worthy in the way that matters to the Left: a claim to oppression. People on the Left and the Right both like to say (or just insinuate) that Jews control the media and mainstream politics and are using it to make U.S. foreign policy subservient to Israel (the Chicago Dyke March and the KKK can bond over that). You know what was good for the Jews? Enlightenment universalist humanism. The principle that individuals are to be judged as individuals, not by their membership in a community; that association with a minority religious or cultural community is a private matter, as long as you’re a good citizen of the state in which you find yourself. Those were the principles that drove the emancipation of Jews in Europe (i.e., the elevation to full citizenship), and the principles with which Zola et al. defended Dreyfus. And yes, you can recognize the effects of systemic group-based oppression and work to fight it, while also insisting that the ultimate locus of moral value is the individual, and that all individuals must be presumed to have equal value in virtue of a common humanity that is more important than group differences.

But here the moral rigorism of the Left—the view that a person, action, or institution with any moral taint must be rotten through and through—causes me problems again. Enlightenment ideals were formulated, articulated, and enshrined in government institutions amid racist European colonialism and misogynist patriarchy. Therefore, the Left concludes, they must be wholly bankrupt. Enlightenment individualism, they say (with a little help from Marx), is just a pretext to glorify the white wealthy landowning male and the capitalist order. Racists and sexists like Locke and Kant, slaveowners like Jefferson and Madison, cannot have had good, genuinely liberatory ideals that they failed to live up to; the ideals themselves must have been devised purely to uphold the system of white supremacist patriarchal capitalism. I find this extremely ironic, considering that the ideals to which the Left swears loyalty, of casting off oppressive systems of domination and striving for equality and “liberation,” have their roots firmly in the Enlightenment. Yes, we should acknowledge the failings and limitations of Enlightenment thinkers, and we should keep expanding our conception of the humanity that deserves liberation. But we should also acknowledge our debt to these flawed, sometimes even overall immoral, human beings—keeping in mind that we, too, will probably look deeply flawed to future generations, even if we are striving in the right direction.

I can cite all kinds of other examples of this moral rigorism, including the very loud people who liked to say that there was no moral difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (and then, oddly enough, cited the 90-some percent of African Americans who voted for Clinton and the 53% of white women who voted for Trump as proof of the virtue of the former and the depravity of the latter). In fannish spaces on Tumblr, it shows up as a hybrid moral-aesthetic rigorism: if a work or its creator is morally problematic, nothing about the work can have any artistic value, either. Thus, since Joss Whedon is a bad feminist (or perhaps not a feminist at all), not only can we no longer enjoy Buffy or consider it progressive in any way, but we must say that he’s a bad storyteller, and a bad writer of dialogue and character, even for white male characters (and if we have to read sloppily to come to that conclusion…? *shrug*). The issue is not just about enjoying media that depicts problematic things (though there is a truly batshit wing of the Tumblr Left that does have a problem with that); it’s about whether you’re allowed to enjoy the good aspects of media that depict certain things in a problematic way.

As for the issue of condemning hate speech and acknowledging the legal right (in the U.S.) to speak it: someone genuinely committed to the reality of moral ambiguity would say that you can do both. You can very strongly condemn white supremacists and neo-Nazis, you can go out and protest their rallies, while also saying that it’s not a good idea to initiate violent altercations with them. You can say that the ACLU is still a good organization even though they defend the rights of neo-Nazis to march. You might think that, as a Jew, I’d be in favor of the “punch a Nazi” attitude—and when it comes to dyed-in-the-wool Nazis like Richard Spencer and Steve Bannon, punch away. But as a believer in moral ambiguity, I also recognize that a lot of the young white men drawn to the alt-right have been radicalized in the very same way as the young Muslim men who are drawn to Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State. Here’s where I see an instance of mirroring between the Right and the Left: Conservatives will tend to say that Islamic terrorists are inherently evil, there’s no redeeming them, and the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist, while many neo-Nazis are just unhappy, isolated, vulnerable young men, despairing over the bleakness of their economic prospects, who have been led astray. Meanwhile, over on the Left, people say that neo-Nazis are inherently evil, irredeemable, etc., while many Islamic terrorists are just vulnerable young men who have been led astray. So both sides accept a double standard, only it’s reversed. Can’t we say that there are some vulnerable, misled young men (and women) among both kinds of extremists? In fact, in Germany, the very same strategies that were developed to deradicalize neo-Nazis are being adapted to deradicalize Islamic extremists.

I know a number of genuinely critical thinkers who want to continue throwing in their lot with the Left for its generally good goals and ideals, despite its problems with moral ambiguity, and I don’t have a problem with that. As long as we’re working for the same outcomes, it’s just a matter of labels. But there are some serious issues where I part company with the Left, and some deep differences on matters of history and philosophy. As a historian and a philosopher, those differences matter a lot to me. And, specifically, as a Jew with a profound sense of Jewish history (though not the religion, which is why I’ve been sitting at home writing this essay instead of going to Yom Kippur services), I also have a profound mistrust of ideological extremes that regard group identity as more important than individual humanity, because people on both ends of the political spectrum have always found reasons to hate us as a group.

[nancy-astorga]

The last march: Colombia’s most notorious rebel group is starting to disarm, but obstacles to peace still loom

Colombia’s longest-running and deadliest insurgency took a major step toward its end this week, when thousands of guerrilla fighters ventured out of dense jungles and started heading to concentration zones around the country.

In all, roughly 6,300 members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a left-wing group that has battled Colombia’s government for more than a half-century, will leave the battlefield for UN-organized camps where they will begin demobilizing and disarming.

Colombian government officials said earlier this week that 450 pickup trucks, 120 cargo trucks, 100 buses, 80 boats, 10 tractors, and 35 mules were required to facilitate the mass movement — journeys for some that could last 22 hours or more.

“The last march of the FARC has started,” Colombia’s office of the presidency said in a statement. “The first guerrillas set off this weekend [on] their path, rifle on shoulder, ready to exchange it for a life in legality, a life in democracy, a different life that contributes to the construction of peace.”

“This is an enormous operation,” Sergio Jaramillo, Colombia’s high commissioner for peace, told the press, according to the Miami Herald. “And the most important aspect is that … we haven’t had a single serious incident. There hasn’t been a single case of a member of the FARC not wanting to move.”

The process has been slow going. FARC rebels have been in “pre-concentration” zones for the last five months. December 1 marked D-Day for the demobilization and disarmament process, but it has taken weeks to get FARC members on the road to their new homes in 26 concentration zones, where they are expected to remain until June 1.

In the days leading up to the move, FARC leadership complained that the camps weren’t ready, and the group posted pictures online of barren clearings meant to hold demobilizing rebels. Other reports surfaced that the move to the camps was going slowly.

On Tuesday, the nonprofit Fundacion Paz y Reconciliacion, which is monitoring the conflict, said 23 of the 26 camps weren’t fully functional.

Luis Vicente Leon, the leader of the nonprofit, said the lack of preparation augured poorly for what would happen when the rebels emerged as new Colombian citizens.

Rather than finding lodging with stocked kitchens, running water, and electricity, FARC rebels arriving at a camp in the mountains of southwest Colombia found only a field filled with sacks of cement.

In other areas, FARC members arriving at unconstructed encampments set about upgrading their accommodations.

“The adversity does not weaken our commitment to peace,” tweeted Pastor Alape, a FARC leader, on Friday.

“What’s going to happen to them?” he said, according to the Miami Herald. “Where are the FARC going to live, what are they going to do, where are they going to work, where will they eat and sleep?”

Nevertheless, 80% of FARC’s combatants are reportedly at their encampments, and the ones yet to reach their sites are to arrive early next week. Rebels are also supposed to have turned in 30% of their arms by this point, which will then be melted down and turned into war monuments.

Despite all that and the setbacks, UN officials overseeing the process say final deadline will be met.

Observers have warned for months that an inadequate demobilization process could turn off the rebel fighters it meant to disarm, pushing them back out into criminal activity.

“Post-conflict societies are notoriously fragile, and there’s great concern that there will be backsliding into violence,” Peter Vincent, who served with the US Justice Department at the US embassy in Colombia from 2006 to 2009, told Business Insider at the end of December.

“The government of Colombia must make good on its promise to assist the demobilized FARC members with efforts to reintegrate them into Colombian civil society, and that is going to take a great deal of time and energy and money,” Vincent said.

“The signing of the peace accord with the FARC is only the beginning,” said Mike Vigil, a former chief of international operations for the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

“The actual work starts now, and what they’re going to have to do is make sure that these individuals are integrated into society, that there’s jobs for these individuals, because if there’s not jobs, they are definitely going to go into criminal activities,” added Vigil, author of of “Metal Coffins: The Blood Alliance Cartel.”

While it appears the majority of the FARC’s members have gone along with the peace process, there is evidence of dissent.

Delays in preparing the concentration zones has reportedly spurred some desertions, with disaffected fighters gravitating toward several rebel blocs that have refused to go along with the peace accord, mainly in the east and south of the country.

In early January, there was an armed clash between two rival FARC groups, leaving two dead in addition to violating the ceasefire the group agreed to.

There are reports that Los Urabeños, also known as the Gulf clan and which is Colombia’s largest criminal group, is offering salaries to demobilizing FARC fighters and trying to move into territory previously control by the FARC, where the Urabeños could adopt drug-trafficking roles and other criminal activities once pursued by the FARC.

Another left-wing rebel group, the National Liberation Army, or ELN, has also been active as the FARC tries to demobilize, and a spike in killings in areas where FARC rebels will gather has been attributed to the presence of the ELN, which is also know for kidnapping.

However, ELN rebels are also slated to begin peace talks with the government in March.

These criminal machinations are happening alongside what increasingly appears to be a campaign of deadly violence against a specific group of civilians.

“The last several weeks have seen the worst wave in years of murders of social leaders, indigenous leaders, land-rights activists, and human rights defenders,” the Washington Office on Latin America said in an early December report.

Many of these people are seen as ideologically aligned with the FARC, and their killings have largely happened in rural areas with weak governance — “most of them likely the work of organized crime-linked landowners and local political bosses,” WOLA states.

There are differing reports on the number of such activists and leaders have been slain.

One estimate put it at 96 killed last year, and nine people have reportedly been killed through January. Another report said 12 were killed during the first month of the year.

During an attempt to demobilize and enter legitimate political life in the late 1980s, FARC members were met with a wave of killings that claimed the lives of thousands, and the recent spate of killings casts doubt on whether post-conflict Colombia will be free of political violence.

“Everyone from the guerrillas to the surrounding communities are scared about what comes next,” a rebel who goes by Marcela González told The Wall Street Journal. “We bet everything on this.”

The transition from the Obama administration to the Trump administration in Washington has also injected doubt about the role the US will play in Colombia’s peace process going forward.

Some fear the new US government could view Colombia’s peace deal like the opening with Cuba: A political victory with little import, as it was won by the previous administration.

Low commodity prices and a weak economy have challenged Colombia’s ability to finance its peace process totally on its own.

“U.S. assistance, then, has become more important than ever, and will directly influence U.S. interests,” WOLA noted in a briefing on the peace accord.

“I would hope that, because the United States deserves some credit for helping to dismantle the various narco trafficking organizations and cartels in Colombia … that the United States would, at the same time, support, through congressionally appropriated funds, Peace Colombia, which was announced early in 2016 by President Obama and President Manuel Santos, to help with that reintegration effort,” Vincent told Business Insider. “And I think that’s going to be incredibly important.”

“A cut would also lead future Colombians to remember the United States for contributing over US$700 million per year in times of war, then slashing assistance the very moment a peace accord was signed,” the WOLA briefing added.

Rex Tillerson, the newly appointed US secretary of state, voiced doubts about the US’s involvement Colombia’s peace process going forward, in part because of a recent surge in drug production in the country.

That surge, along with vocal opposition to the peace deal led by conservative former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, has helped make Republican lawmakers in the US wary of the deal, believing that future US assistance will be misused or misappropriated.

Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican congressman from Florida, told The Washington Times in early January that the accord was “unacceptable” and had worrying elements. “We are going to be attaching more and more strings to make sure that the money does not go to handing Colombia over to FARC.”

“Across-the-aisle consensus on Plan Colombia helped Colombia dramatically reduce crime and violence, assisted the state in recovering its territorial integrity, led to the disarming of paramilitaries and beat back the guerrillas to the negotiating table,” Chris Sabatini, editor Latin America Goes Global, a website monitoring the region, told the Associated Press.

“Now, ironically, that foundation — the bipartisan consensus — is at risk of fracturing, just as the country is at the cusp of what everyone wanted for originally: peace,” Sabatini said.

Bernard Aronson, who, as US envoy, helped guide the peace process to its conclusion between 2014 and the deal’s approval late last year, hoped US legislators would see the value in the deal’s success, for both Colombia and the US.

“We’ve sustained our commitment and our support for Colombia, and we’ve helped it become the most vibrant democracy in South America,” Aronson told The Washington Post. “That’s what I hope [the Trump administration] will build on.”

As part of the Peace Colombia initiative Obama proposed $450 million in aid to Colombia for 2017 — funds that would go toward removing land mines, crop-substitution programs in coca-growing areas, and economic development for rural and isolated regions, many of which have no visible state presence.

Fostering the growth necessary to fund these post-conflict programs and economic development initiatives will take commitment and buy-in from members of Colombian society — as will the law-enforcement and legal efforts to combat crime and violence that crops in the wake of FARC’s demobilization.

“They have to have a long-term strategy. They have to monitor the progress,” Vigil told Business Insider. “They have to have milestones, and it’s going to be a lot of work by a a lot of stakeholders in the Colombian government. And if they falter and stumble, it’s going to be disastrous.”

As with the demobilization of the AUC, a right-wing paramilitary group that laid down its arms in the mid-2000s, pursuing peace will a more challenging struggle than the armed fights that brought the AUC and the FARC to the negotiating table.

“Waging war, ironically, against both groups was relatively easy,” Vincent told Business Insider. “With the AUC and now with the FARC, keeping the peace is going to be much more difficult and much more complicated, and it’s going to take a very, very long time.”

SEE ALSO: Mexico’s bloody cartel realignment is intensifying in one of the country’s smallest states

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Colombian authorities seized 3 tons of cocaine bound for the US hidden in a ‘narco-submarine’