The identity politics born out primarily by the group APOC (Anarchist People of Color, Illvox) to discuss race within the context of the anarchist movement, has been a major part of anarchist discourse since around 2002 when the APOC network was formed.
Beyond this narrow understanding of identity in terms of the language of “political correctness” is an effective strategy. The strategy one should aim for is past identity politics altogether in a land where comrades seek to empower all members of the anarchist community and have respect for their comrades and themselves.
Fred Hampton from the Black Panther Party, 1960s
Sitting in an identity politics workshop led by an APOC chapter, however, you might wonder if it is even okay to speak your opinions on identity if you are a white person. This is the legacy white anarchists have inherited from white activists from the 60s, who sought to be “allies” to other peoples’ struggles, which usually took on a strictly anti-imperialist form. This is still the primary form white peoples’ activism takes on today. However, the anti-imperialist platforms are not necessarily anarchist (and usually not.) I tell people I am anti-imperialist because I am an anarchist.
I look around the room during an APOC workshop and see the guilt-stricken faces of white people all around me. All the white people in the room are quiet. What are they thinking right now? Perhaps my opinions have already been heard since I am white? Perhaps I should let someone else speak instead? How should I phrase what I am about to say so that I won’t be perceived as ‘privileged’ or ‘inconsiderate’? How can I express myself without on some level trying to conceal myself? Finally a white person cannot conceal themself any longer and decides to talk about the problem white guilt. He asks the group whether he should feel guilty or angry about it. The group responds by answering something along the lines of, “Only you can decide that.” Is this a therapy session? – I wonder to myself.
Not that there’s anything wrong with group therapy. But I wonder if the white people present are falling into a cycle, one that is no stranger to leftist movements past and present.
APOC Conference poster
Today identity politics can only be thought politically, because all thought is touched by the politics of identity-being, either as its promotional content or mode of concealment.
And yet, if we are fated to experience the full meaning of the “identity politics” society has created, and if we are destined to be fully aware of the implications of abandoning politics as anarchists, then this should also indicate that a counter-movement is already in motion by militant anarchists of all colors and identities.
Identity politics is a fatal strategy since it does not push the milieu to greater understanding, but rather, separation. At any rate identity politics is largely navigated by the activist left, as evidenced by most articles on the Illvox website, and most the chatter on social media about identity politics. See for example, “Five Things White Activists Should Never Say.”
Identity politics cannot overcome the identity-isms which society created for itself, and by extension, inherited by the anarchist milieu. That discourse succeeded in bringing issues of privilege and entitlement to the forefront of the white activist, non-profit complex. It introduced guilt to white ally-activists when they realized they did not have enough people of color in their rank-and-file. However, this strategy also succeeded in bringing an anti-political tendency (anarchism) back into the framework of purely political speech, and a post-leftist milieu (anarchism) back into the framework of the anti-racist left.
But identity politics, the fatal strategy, is unconditionally in service to this political machine of recuperation – always giving into its decisions, its promotions, its biases. What does it mean to really practice anarchism, instead of merely vying for anarchism politically?
APOC poster
A person at the APOC workshop poses the question: “How can a ‘safe space’ exist in an unsafe world?”
(Check out Open Letter to a White Student Movement.) What this does is impress the “safe space” discourse and the inverse hierarchy of privilege onto the group consciousness. In the context of “pro-revolutionary struggle,” to think some people are less entitled to revolutionary action than others is a fatal strategy.
Let’s look at who uses the safe space discourse. At this APOC workshop in Seattle many of the annoying people were not actually aware that they were attending a workshop at the Seattle Anarchist Bookfair. They dropped in from liberal academic group listings, or from non-profit style organizations. The most annoying person there, I found out later she was a Christian missionary who had white guilt written all over her. Did she come to APOC’s workshop to learn how to be a white Christian person among unsaved people of color? There are some questions you do not need to ask to know the answers to.
I would like other anarchists in the Northwest, whether or not APOC is your forte, to consider some personal questions. What does it mean to accept this milieu for what it is, and to accept yourself for who you are? It seems the challenge is, how can you not think of yourselves politically, when politics is all there is to think? What does it mean to have self-respect, not respect for a different hierarchy of identities? What does it really mean to live out human destiny under the decidability of yourself?
Yo, take action!
why are ‘privileged’ and ‘inconsiderate’ in scare quotes?
A quote within a quote uses a single quotation mark. The voice in that paragraph is the voice of someone else, which is presumed to already be in quotations.
ex.g.
Sally corrected Jack, “The SDS motto, ‘dare to struggle, dare to win’ is actually a quote from Mao Zedong.”
I’ve never heard anyone say “privilege” as a full quote. Usually there’s a context and a fuller sentence that you’ve left out. This is why I asked if you were denying that privilege exists (scare quotes!) or if you were simply sweeping all of our movements century old problems with sexism and racism (etc) down into a convenient little pile so it’s easier for you to sweep up.
It turns out it was the latter, because basically you’ve truncated the arguments about privilege into absurdity and remove all substance from the opposing view. Focusing on the word ‘privilege’ and ignoring the rest of that hypothetical statement is how and why you can attack ID as a ridiculous thing, completely divorced from its meaning or its context, its history, or the reasons why it may or may not be a legitimate issue. Ignoring these things lets you dismiss it out of hand. In other words, this isnt a good faith discussion of identity but just an attack on something you don’t like dressed up as something more.
And maybe you’re not aware but this post has been written about a million times already. Typically by racists or gender reactionaries, but also by our class-reductionist comrades. So what exactly is new here in this call for us to move “beyond ID” and not make white people or men “feel guilty”. How is this not the same call we see from Mens Rights reactionaries and Marxists every day?
Thanks for the response. In my opinion this is the important topic within North American anarchism today. I can see this is important to you so I want to know why and more.
I want to know if you consider yourself an anarchist and if yes what does anarchism mean to you. How do you see the world? How do you view white people, and anarchist white people (if the two are different)? What are they fighting for and what are you fighting for?
Now, to respond to some of your points.
**1** Why is “privilege” in quotations?
You should not rest your argument on the fact that I put this word in quotations. I often put words that I am trying to highlight in quotations on my blog. Yesterday I put “bulletin” and “periodical” in quotations for example, which I didn’t realize looked out of place until this morning when I reread it. I should probably italicize more, but this is an idiosyncrasy of mine not a Freudian slip.
I don’t reduce privilege to absurdity (in the sense of trivializing its importance, or, what other sense did you mean?) My point if anything was to reduce identity politics to absurdity (in the sense of showing how self-loathing it has become, if that is, you believe self-loathe is a bad thing.)
You say I ignore privilege in order to make identity politics look absurd. Tell me what evidence there is that I ignore privilege. My post is not about privilege. My post is about how white anarchists deal with privilege and individuality in the context of anti-racist identity politics. I’m not going to write yet ANOTHER post about how white people don’t realize they’re privileged because that’s obvious and, within the anarchist milieu, trite.
***2*** How is my argument different from Marxists?
Marxists are class reductionists, I believe is the point you’re making. In plain proletarian English, I am not a class reductionist (unless you can find evidence that I use racism or patriarchy in scare quotes.)
Am I a reactionary? — in the general sense of that word, yes. Obviously I am reacting to the APOC organization and the identity politics they promote.
***3*** Here is my last point for you
Do you consider people who don’t want to be an anti-racist anti-imperialist ally to the APOC movement, in the same category of people who are racist reactionaries, gender reactionaries and class-reductionists? If so that’s reductionist – reducing all your non-allies to reactionaries.
And if so, then the only option for the non-APOC anarchist is to fit into the checkered box as the APOC ally.
But what if I’m not interested in being an ally to someone else’s movement in any mode of identifying myself. Do you want to be an ally to my movement? To me this conversation is completely pointless. If we are allies, then we are allies because we’re anarchists and it’s interconnected. Don’t ask me to go to an APOC demo as a white ally to APOC. Would you go to a white anarchist demo as a representative of APOC? Would you destroy property as an ally to the ELF or ALF? Would you speak out against environmental damage as an ally to the environmental movement? Or against capitalism as an ally of the working class? Against police brutality as an ally to the victims of brutality?
No, I don’t think so. And I think most anarchists know this. That’s why graffiti says “I am Oscar Grant” or “We are all jaywalkers” and – we are not fighting for the working class, but for the abolition of the working class. We don’t fight for prisoners, because we are already prisoners fighting for the abolition of the prison system, and hence the abolition of all prisoners.
I would only be an ally to individuals in the true sense of the word “ally” or comrade. I’m not an ally to the APOC Caucus of the International Anarchist Movement or something equally silly. But this is what APOC and identity politics has become.
- UtopiaorBust
Sometimes I wonder if it’s really worth the time to spell out my thoughts on the blog. Obviously people read it, but the only comment here doesn’t really address anything in the text, but only takes a stab at my (potentially racist?) grammar usage. How typical.
I agree 99%. The usual butting of white up against identity, with a heavy dose of guilt, is counterproductive. Identity politics is in the service of big tent Liberalism. But — and I am here admittedly picking nits — what do we say to the Black Panthers? Instead of simply jettisoning identity as political perhaps we should co-opt it, complicate it. We all have a multiplicity of intersecting fluid identities. I find my (self-consciously constructed, post-modern pastiche of an) identity to be an invaluable tool (weapon?). Identity can be fun and messy!
I think you must use your identity, you cannot conceal it. Identity is always in use. There are many identities to draw from inside yourself too, which are not always in use. So then how do you mean complicate, co-opt the identity?
Complicate in that we could bring out that inherent multiplicity and use it to put pressure on the stodgy (single) identity politics.
Co-opt in that we could use the phantasmagoria of identity to keep pushing till we reach the point where any attempt to operate from the basis of identity politics collapses under its own complications.
I guess what I mean is that instead of attacking identity politics it may be more useful to begin, and insist on, a much more sophisticated conversation about identity.
(I apologize if I missed the thrust of your original post.)
“Pushing till we reach the point where any attempt to operate from the basis of identity politics collapses under its own complications” makes me think of satire. Satire can effectively bring discourse to new, more sophisticated levels.
But going back to the inherent multiplicity of identity – how can identity multiplicity pressure the politics of identity? Sure it complicates it. You’ll never know “what it’s like to be a bat” — to be the Other person. As a white person you won’t know what it’s like to experience racism as a black person. But is that what the identity politics boils down to – that everyone has a unique set of experiences that the Other must acknowledge as theirs?
What is the more sophisticated conversation about identity that should be going on?
i have two quick suggestions:
first — the deleuzian approach would suggest that identity is a second order operation. that means that we shouldnt use it as a basis of analysis, only as an index of how things are going. brian massumi’s book “parable for the virtual” is really good on this. i should probably write something up about it.
second — the post-phenomenological approach would be “the encounter”. in particular, althusser’s late work in “the philosophy of the encounter.” the idea here is that all things are autonomous and contingent (they have different histories, trajectories, etc) and are only temporarily constructed into unities. The stability of such unities are always threatened by the aleatory movement of its parts, so the only way formations are reproduced is through their “becoming necessary.” Obviously this was constructed through a re-reading of the capitalism mode of production through Epicurus and Lucretius (whom Marx wrote his dissertation on). Such a perspective with give “identities” and their aspects a much more dynamic character.
over-and-out. awc
p.s. @AWC: dude, I know what you’re talking about and I can’t understand what you’re talking about.
you’re going to have to clarify your objections. what do you get and not get? do you understand the theoretical points but not how to apply them to ID politix? do you recognize the ideas but not get how i’m putting them together? etc etc
First point. Can you give an example of using identity as an index for how things are going? I simply haven’t studied as much Deleuze to get the point.
Second point. I see the picture you are describing. So let me rephrase this. All the identities have different histories and trajectories and are bound up in “the individual” which is an expression of that concoction. But the unity of the individual is threatened by the chaotic nature of the different identity nodes (–nodes?) inside them, all going in different directions. So the unity of the individual’s identities is reproduced through their “becoming necessary”.
Why are they becoming necessary?
What do you think this means in terms of racism, privilege, and identity politics?
first point:
a key term for understanding identity according to deleuze would be ‘singularity’.
this example should feel basic and self-evident. rather than looking at wood from the perspective of a mill, which tries to reduce all wood to varying grades of lumber (based on grain, knots, warps), a whittler or woodworker pays attention to the unique surface of each piece of wood. every protruding knot and channel of grain serves to produce a truly singular piece of art.
philosophically, this means resisting both Plato and Aristotle. plato would note that a universal Form exists in an ideal transcendental order, from which each piece of wood exists as a degraded form. some pieces of wood are ‘more perfect’ than other. and the hidden criterion of perfectness would likely be less knots, less warp, straighter grain – all images of a piece of wood that expresses a few essential properties with no deviations or differences.
aristotle would be similar, but with a bit more sophistication. remember, plato culling the field of things, trying to organize them according to the smallest number of essential properties. aristotle, in contrast, multiplies the world of things, trying to separate them as much as possible until all of the necessary differences between them are determined. at the root of contrasting things (animals, insects: two-legged, four-legged, etc), are natural kinds.
deleuze has an even more expansive account of difference. everything emerges from a differential field. and even when things like speciation occur, it is because of a contingent splitting which is historically significant not abstractly necessary. the field of possibilities is ever-greater than the world in front of us that has been actualized. and the field of possibilities doesn’t exist out of this world, but is immanently “real without being actual, ideal without being abstract”.
identites are therefore always becoming otherwise. the fact that they persist should be the real question. foucault wrote two dense books (OT, AoK) explaining “the seeable” and “the sayable” according to this principle: in a world of discontinuity, how can one posit that we share the same way of seeing or are part of the same conversation?
looking at already existing approaches, the diagnostic of most materialism is probably good enough to get the job done. materialist critical race theory following from Cheryl Harris’ proposition of “whiteness as property” or Omi and Winant’s racial formations are excellent starting points, regardless of smaller metaphysical or methodological qualms. the same goes for capitalism, femininsm, queer theory, poco, etc etc. there are two ‘problems’ as i see them.
the first problem is that the ‘objects’ of previous materialist analysis is largely a product of their epistemology. therefore, the formations they set out to explain might not be the same ones we would look at. for instance, if one is to maintain a strong fidelity to Foucault’s microphysics of power and a Deleuzo-Guattarian insistence on assemblage thinking, the capitalist mode of production will look much more like Gibson-Graham’s loose patchwork of heterogeneous practices than Jameson’s totality.
the second problem comes turning the ‘rules’ that emerge from the analysis into the basis for strategy. deleuze and guattari’s approach tends to produce a completely different politics. one immediate example is their “anarchism”, which emphasizes a subversion of repressive hierarchal power and encouraging forms of productive power. a case i like to use is the feminist group at the college i attended. after some displeasure over oppositional strategies that couldn’t find a clear-cut target, they decided to have a sex fair. compare this to recent campaigns at the university i currently attend that confrontationally condemn people of “supporting race culture.” as foucault would emphasize, such repressive (even forced ‘confessional’) strategies tend to produce sex as a point of anxiety and therefore a strange mix of guilt/perversion/power than to unleash productive notions of sexuality. sure, tearing down the patriarchy is something that must be done, but the explosion of patriarchal assemblages into free quanta through reactionary affect will have to crystallize back into different assemblages, and likely result will be more repressive fruit.
on the second, it may be easier to start with this (old old old) paper to get what i have to say about becoming-necessary, and go from there.
http://osu.academia.edu/AndrewCulp/Papers/185531/Schizo-Performativity-and-Conjuncture–Psychoanalysis–Historical-Materialism-and-the-Reproduction-of-Capital–Althusser–Balibar–Butler–Guattari-
as far as privilege goes, i think a lot of the work that’s been done on it is important. but on the same hand, its conceptualization implies a politics that i disagree with.
for instance, feminist standpoint epistemology puts the burden of the standpoint on “two sides”. someone must bear their history (or, if you will, their ‘position’ within an intersection of identities), and as a result of understanding their history, act in a way that reconciles that history with their preferred version of politics.
when “privilege” is used to condemn someone, its usually done in a sloppy haphazard way of making someone stand-in for a whole identity-position regardless of that persons situated-ness. and therefore, it disavows the intersectional and historical nature of that person’s understanding of their identity position.
often the slight it to show a certain obliviousness to either self-recognition of identity or congruence of strategy v/v identity, or a disagreement over strategy.
but, because of its standard deployment, its almost never meant as a prelude to a discussion or a friendly disagreement, but a judgment and often a roadblock (i refuse to work with this person until they own up to their privilege, etc etc).
i have a more sophisticated/theoretical take in my head that i haven’t put down on paper yet.
I agree and think you should put that more sophisticated/theoretical take in writing – it would be worth reading.
Not multiplicity across people but within. Sure we all have different experiences, but I think the more sophisticated conversation is to talk about how none of us have a unitary experience and how we can — perhaps — form ‘identity politic’ blocks not on (virtual) solid ground but on the shifting phantasmagoria of our identities.
Ok interesting. None of us have a unitary experience at all. I don’t have the same experience as you. As well as, I don’t have the same experience as myself, so to speak, because of all the complicated identity movement going on in there. Is that what you mean?
So instead of identifying with other falsely solid identities like white or black, form alliances with others based on shifting identities.
Would it be like — hey, I’m becoming more of an anarchist so I want to identify with other people becoming anarchists. Or, I’m becoming a white antiracist-imperialist ally and want to identify with other people becoming white antiracist-imperialist allies. In Deleuzian, I’m “becoming” and want to identify with similar becomings.
If that’s right it is more sophisticated. Where do you think that discussion would take identity politics in terms of race, gender, class, etc? Aren’t some identities off-limits simply because of society and history? This may blur the lines between identities, but it doesn’t change the fact that some identities are more privileged because of society and history, etc.
ever read linda alcoff’s “the problem of speaking for others”? I think it addresses a lot of these problems well:
http://www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html
the deleuzian imperative would be to get out of the register of ‘identification’ almost altogether.
D & I are on the same page (I think). But just abandoning the term doesn’t help the folks stuck in that rut. Hence my cautious proposal of over identifying with identity, so to speak, to explode the idea.
And since the neatly nested comment thread is flying off in 10,000 directions I may need to take a hint from you (i.e. steal your idea) and just write a quick blag post.
Yes this is going off into so many directions I’ll have to read the links before having further to say.
i originally posted this comment to the re-post on @-news. therefore, some of this might be out of context with the conversation happening here, but i’m seeking some clarification on your article.
1. i want to echo that APOC is not the only source of identity politic discourse in anarchist circles, and i find it really bizarre that you’re focusing in on APOC & black liberation struggles. why did you ignore other ID discourses? was it just to make it easier to frame a scope for your article, or do you have some specific beef with APOC?
2. why do you describe identity politic discourses as a strategy? to me, identity politics are an analysis tool. my strategy as an anarcha-feminist is the destruction of all social hierarchy (not just class) – my reason for doing so is that through the analysis of identity politics and intersecting oppressions, i see that patriarchy and sex/gender are just as insiduous as capitalist/economic control. in short: my work won’t be free until my body is free.
3. why do you assume that all the white people in the room at an APOC workshop were “guilt-stricken”?
4. “Identity politics cannot overcome the identity-isms which society created for itself, and by extension, inherited by the anarchist milieu.”
can anarchism overcome socially-constructed identities? do we leave identities (and the experience they shape) at the door when we enter an anarchist space? do our identities suddenly vanish when we take the street? does a person with different mobility capacities – say they use a wheelchair – suddenly have the same mobility capacities as those around them that don’t use a wheelchair just because they’re holding a barricade?
5. can you explain how safe(r) spaces in anarchist praxis mirror the non-profit industrial complex? non-profits often act as an arm of the state to mediate or pacify social problems. for example, a non-profit offers meals and housing to “homeless” people who are on the street because of capitalism. non-profits will never address the underlying cause of homelessness or access to food, they simply pacify the symptoms. to say that safe(r) spaces only pacify the symptom (of racism, sexism, etc.) pretends that anarchist praxis isn’t also temporary and continually mediated.
yes, i’m an anarchist, but i’m also a capitalist by default. i still have to operate in a world where rent, waged work, groceries, banks, state-operated transport, etc exist. i can live in a communal house, and dumpster/steal/share food, ride my bike or walk, and keep my money out of a bank, participate in free markets and find ways to use/interact with money as little as possible, but capitalism still seeps into my life and i don’t think i’ll ever be able to unwire that socialization. in a lot of ways, to borrow from deleuze & guattari, i’m more of a becoming-anarchist than anything.
in a similar fashion, i’m a white, queer, female-socialized/ciswoman femme, and everyday i experience a certain level of violence and threat based on these identity constructions. i’m also a heterosexist, racist, patriarchical douchebag by social default, as much as i work to refuse these as my social “destiny”.
to me, creating safe(r) spaces is both a way to find places where i have allies and can be an ally to others dealing with this violence. it’s also a place to work on my own shit – a sort of becoming-safe space. and it fuels me. to know that i have allies, to take away tools from these spaces and workshops aids me 1) in not just killing myself and 2) in continuing to fight. the boundary and consent skills that i might learn in a workshop focused on sexual violence is a tool that i can also apply in a bloc.
a wonderful example that a friend had in conversation went something like: to say that safe space is only useful in a consent workshop and doesn’t translate to the outside world or to a barricade is bullshit. that’s like saying that a workshop where someone teaches you to create a molotov doesn’t give you a tool to take away. did you learn how to make a molotov? are you now able to take that to the barricade and blow the cops up? alright. same thing with consent and safe(r) spaces. it’s a tool.
Thanks for the comment. Hopefully I can clarify.
1) I know APOC is not the only source of identity politics, nor did they invent it. I changed the wording ever so slightly to reflect that I was not crediting APOC with inventing identity politics discourse (yeah that would be anachronistic on my part), but someone had already reposted it to AnarchistNews. I have specific beef with APOC (the organization). I’ve met individuals from the Seattle APOC and they were great. But organizationally it like political-style posturing and fanfare. I have specific things to say about the Seattle chapter and how they’ve asked their “allies” in, for example Tacoma, to do ridiculous shit and jump through unnecessary hoops to prove a phony “alliance” which never existed.
2) What is the difference between a tool and a strategy in your analysis?
3) At this particular workshop I had in mind, the workshop attendees — anarchists mostly, but as I found out, there were also a Christian missionary and student activists — talked about why they felt guilty for being white. White guilt became the focus of the workshop. It was a very honest discussion, but I felt there was something really obvious missing: self-respect.
4) In the unsafe world in our society, patriarchal white supremacy rules. The more you conform to that supremacist identity the more privileged or more status you have. Society follows the code to its politics of identity-being. Your opinions are less valid as a pagan trans person of color with a disability, for example. In the safe(r) spaces, we try to dissolve that prejudice. But I’ve learned in the safe(r) space there is another code you follow. Whoever on the outside has less status, now has more status on the inside. The oppressed identity has more power than the unoppressed identity inside a safe(r) space. More validity is given to oppressed identities than unoppressed identities. The safe(r) space values the oppressed identity, and wants to celebrate that identity.
I’m not for the preservation of prisoners in a prison system. I’m not for white supremacy, not for oppressed supremacy either. I’m for the destruction of prisons, freedom for all prisoners. Why would I place that kind of value on a system of identities that the society I want to destroy created in the first place? It’s as if we were to fall in love with “prison culture” and glorify that. Obviously we don’t want to be prisoners, so why would we value the prisoner in our new hierarchy of identities? The prisoner is the identity we want to destroy — without the prisoner, the prison wouldn’t exist.
But if I value the prisoner identity above all else, then I’m basically saying I value the oppression that causes the oppressed identity to exist in the first place. By flipping the value from negative to positive. And when I value that oppression, what room is there to be pro-revolutionary? Maybe you don’t see my point, but it’s worth discussing. (Do we have an anarchist identity hierarchy?)
5) I’ll start where I left off in the last question. The safest spaces for me are rooms with people I know as anarchists or comrades. I trust them because I know them, we have rapport because we have experience. For me it has nothing to do with feeling safe because I know that we’re in a “safe(r) space” supervised by anarchists who are really into themselves as identity-beings. I’ve read many zines about consensus decision-making, about how white guys always speak louder and more often in workshops, and I know this. But I also think
that approach is more like “the tip of the iceberg.” There’s so much more going on. For me, being a white male in a safe(r) space I feel pressure to be overly self-critical instead of just being who I want to be, and getting to know other people on those terms. That’s the problem I deal with, and why I think self-proclaimed safe(r) spaces are really not that pleasant to be in.
I recently had a friend tell me there’s no reason for her to be an anarchist because she was just a middle class white girl who came from a small tourist town in CA — “How could I have any reason to be an anarchist?”
Hence, a fatal strategy. Maybe, unless there’s some way you can prove your own oppression to yourself, you have “NO REASON” to be an anarchist.
This is why identity politics is politics. It postures itself politically like the nonprofit does — because it has something to prove to the larger political whole. It has to prove it’s own revolutionary cause to the Other. The nonprofit is always doing this, with PR strategies and working closely with funders, to whom they prove their cause. With the identity politics, you hear people saying and complaining there are a lot of white men in the anarchist movement. But like I said, what does it mean to really accept YOURSELF for who you are, to accept the demographics of other people who call themselves anarchists too, and move on with your life.