Unit Reflection 3 – Aja Moore

So this week we’re writing about Nietzsche, Hegel and Winant, possibly, and different racial configurations and their political implications. I’m learning about Nietzsche right now in my existentialism class, and I’m not particularly impressed yet. I’ve never felt that fond of Hegel, either, mostly because of how he says what he says.

So I thought I’d focus on a particular word choice of Winant’s, which seemed to garner a lot of frustration in class. The use of the word “traitor,” in reference to white people who want to help change the current racial landscape. I tried to say something about why I don’t think this is misguided, but there wasn’t space or time. I think this assertion requires us to look closely at the word, and perhaps to understand it differently.

At first glance, I suppose it comes across as extreme. But considering the context it’s being used in–racial inequity and violence in the United States–which is nothing short of extreme, is it still so shocking? If the situation is extreme, then why should the language we use to address it, and the measures we take to remedy it not be?

The situation in Canada is extreme. It is severe and fatal and it is reaching a breaking point this week I hope. On Saturday I went to the demonstration downtown in response to Gerald Stanley’s acquittal. It  was very beautiful, very healing and very disturbing too. In this case it was productive to have an in depth acknowledgement and discussion of settler colonialism, its history, and its current manifestations. To do that is naturally, deeply disturbing., and generatively so. There was much discussion about Indigenous resistance which was very inspiring.

At the event there was also some discussion of the necessity of settler intervention, of settler aid. One speaker defined power as the “confluence of power and control.” If one has the power to influence people, to any degree, they should use it to push decolonial practices and modes of being. Settlers are frequently people with immense power and control. Certainly we often have more than Indigenous peoples. We should, therefore, be using this power and control in the service of Indigenous people and causes, or not at all. (Although, often, if you are coded as white you cannot opt out of the privilege your skin afford you.)

Considering Canada is founded on the egregious abuse and the systematic killing of Indigenous peoples, especially of Two Spirit people and women, and the subsequent  installment of white supremacy, then I think it makes sense to use the word traitor. 

I don’t think it’s suggesting that in order to be a good ally we need to specifically attack and dismantle other white people (if you have been privileged enough to spend time in Indigenous settings you will know that it is not common to advocate for violence, despite the violence that has been done and is being done to Indigenous communities) but we need to do nothing short of attack whiteness, its institutions and its practices. It is an identity founded on genocide. I really believe this and I think if you don’t, I’d encourage you to do more research.

The word traitor here accomplishes two things: firstly, it provides a moniker that goes some way in mirroring the reality of the forces we’re hopefully conspiring against, but it also sheds some light on the reality of addressing these realities in white settings. It is incredibly difficult to do so in ways that have truly transformative effects. Even the most “progressive” members of my family will find ways to try to maintain their control and influence, often falling back on methods that masquerade as “caring” and “compassion” (see also: white savior.)

I don’t think this is because all white people are malicious, power hungry killers. (Although many of them are.) And I think that’s why there was such a push back to this term, because perhaps we thought that’s what it was implying. That somehow the word traitor implies a level of intensity and of evil intent that we don’t naturally ascribe to all white people.

While I don’t ascribe pure evil to all white bodies, I do ascribe a level of ignorance, some of which is preciously and intentionally preserved, all of which is incredibly political. I don’t think we need to be traitors to each other, but we do need to be traitors to white ideology. And I’d argue this requires a complete, lifelong, intentional, disavowal of what we’ve been taught since birth. It is a constant project, learning-experience and negotiation. To remain ignorant of the deep and consistent ways white supremacy permeates out lives is a political project in and of itself, meant to, ultimately, protect the power that’s beeen invested in whiteness.

I hope this is adding up in some ways for you, my two readers giving me a mark out of five.

After the demonstration I thought a l0t about the concepts of healing, and of community and I became incredibly aware of the fact that: it is almost never white people who invite me to do the kind of thinking and community building that allows me to really dismantle and rebuild. In other words, to treat the causes of the problem rather than its symptoms. It is almost always other marginalized communities with differential access to power than me, who graciously offer me this opportunity.

I think now is the moment fully realize the material violence that is constantly evoked by and committed to preserve whiteness. Please, reconsider the aptness of the term traitor. You could try to embrace it.