A defence and a challenge [Content Warning: discrimination, violence, sexual assault, self harm]

One of the things I have long admired about the people of France is their ability to resist oppression. 

This has been shown most recently by their protests against changes (I don’t consider them “reforms”) to pensions, but it goes all the way back to the storming of the Bastille that began the French Revolution. 

A few years earlier, the world had seen the US (“American”) Revolution; a century and a bit later, the world would see the Russian revolution - the first one, not the Bolshevik Revolution which kicked off the Russian Civil War and led to the oppressive USSR - and I note that the French revolution was also subsequently taken over by oppressive forces. 

This all reflects politico-social mechanics that we see elsewhere - for instance, decades of protests and resistance in Myanmar led to steps towards change, and then the oppressors implemented a backlash to enable themselves to keep power. 

More recently, the Sudanese removed the despot Bashir from power, but, learning from past revolutions, kept working at ensuring a proper democratic transition ... until the men with guns, small minds and closed hearts acted to keep their power and thus their personal comfort zone - which is now being played out in violence. 

This problem of violent reactions against revolutions has been written about by Gene  Sharp in “The Anti-Coup” (Amazon), and more recently by a Political Violence at a Glance article here. 

There are, of course, successful transitions from oppression to freedom/democracy - for instance, South Africa in 1993, but, as a broad generalisation (which is subject to the limitations of all such generalisations), once change has been accomplished many people will seek whatever they consider to be “comfort” - and often that is resisting any further change, or resisting what they perceive as loss of status/power ... or even trying to revert to the old ways in as underhanded (and I include microaggressions in that) and “don’t rock the boat” type of way that their twisted, devious and hating hearts and minds can devise. 

As an example, after slavery was abolished in the USA towards the end of their civil war, there was an appalling backlash to that which included continued lynchings, Jim Crow laws, and every form of subterfuge that they could conceive - and violence, including aerial attacks on black people and, more recently, the use of violence against the predominantly peaceful  Black Lives Matter  protests.

On that, it seems to me that many people are perfectly happy to take action against oppression that personally affects them, but may resist (e.g., see here) others taking action against oppression that affects those others if the first group fear it might impact them. This, along with unacknowledged (let alone dealt with) personal biases (whether conscious or unconscious is irrelevant), leads to the problem of lateral  hostility.

Something similar also occurs at a larger scale - for instance, the USA is proud of its Revolution, but has taken action against other nations that have also fought wars of independence if the USA considers that inconvenient to the USA or its interests (bringing to mind the somewhat cynical and thus somewhat inaccurate saying that the USA doesn’t have friends, only interests). in fact, at a national/international scale, the USA’s military excursions against other nations is the best set of examples of this sort of hypocrisy that I can think of - especially the violent invasion recently self-achieved free republic (like the USA had done) of the Philippines at the end of the 19^th century. 

At a smaller scale, the already mentioned backlash against developments in human rights, including the targetting of individuals, is what comes to mind on that point.  An example is transphobic Prime Minister Albanese’s recent, staggeringly ill-advised  comments about the mental health of Senator Thorpe. 

Now, on the PMs comments about the mental health of Senator Thorpe, the dangers of remote diagnosis were laid bare by the 1964 US presidential campaign where allegations of mental unfitness were made against Senator Barry Goldwater, leading to what is termed the Goldwater  Rule (also see here, here, and here). More recently, experts have commented on what they considered the problems of potus45, including calling for nuanced changes of that guide - for qualified professionals. 

For someone with no medical training, let alone qualifications or registration, to start making such comments is dangerous - and quite possibly questionable legally. 

PM Albanese has shown some signs of having limits to what he is comfortable with - especially regarding trans and gender diverse (TGD) people. I suspect he is also reflecting the bias of many middle class people against any protests or actions that make them feel uncomfortable, when he made those comments about Senator Thorpe. 

He is definitely, IMO, showing a lack of understanding of the impacts of bigotry, and implementing the widespread double standards I hinted at above between action at national level and action by sub-national groups for their rights - including the right to exist.

This has been written about by others - for example, in the context of the Voice, here - which also provides an excellent defence of Senator Thorpe. 

From a personal perspective, I am aware that endless oppression of myself as a trans woman leads to a wide range of problems - such as depression, which is anger turned inwards. The hypocrisy of cisgender people expecting a level of calmness that they are comfortable with on the topic of gender diversity is in and of itself a form of control - an attempt to impose, or restrict change to, gender stereotypes. 

That some people find the pressure too much, and take the same sort of physical action that the settlers in the British colonies or the oppressed of France or Russia took, is not surprising to me. 

In “Talking To My Country”, respected Wiradjuri man, journalist  and  academic  Stan Grant writes about Jimmy Governor and his wife Ethel, whose story led to the book and film versions titled “The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith” (Amazon): 

[they were] “taunted for their interracial marriage and mixed-blood child. The real Jimmy had found work on a farm near Dubbo in western New South Wales owned by the Mawbey family. The Governors were allowed to live on the property. But it was an uneasy coexistence. Ethel complained of abuse and there were disputes over food and rations. On a cold winter night on 20 July 1900, Jimmy took revenge.”

Going back to a broader consideration of conduct that comfortable (bourgeoisie) people don’t like, including refusing to accept what is wrong, forcefulness, confrontation, aggression, and possibly even violence, are such reactions to oppression/abuse/discrimination wrong? I’ll never answer that unless anyone asking that question first answers the questions: 

(a) “is the oppression they are reacting to wrong?”, and 
(b) what effective actions against that that oppression (including supporting the oppressed) have the person asking that question taken in the past, are undertaking now, and will take in the future?

Are such reactions to oppression/abuse/discrimination effective? Sometimes yes, as it gets attention that “nice” actions don’t, but possibly too often, no - or “only” partially effective - this database gives some actual evidence on that (I've copied one extract below to show what that evidence is like). The marches against the Vietnam War didn’t stop us getting involved, but they helped get a government elected that got us out of that highly questionable war. The protests against the pension changes in France didn’t stop the changes, but they have made sure the world knows (and the UN has raised concerns about police violence and discrimination), stopped the flow of oppression-in-the-name-of-pseudo-economics, and made voting in a new government, one more aligned with what the people want, at the next election almost certain.

Is it, when done at an individual level, possibly counter-productive? Possibly, yes - especially when bigots use it as an excuse to not change. 

Does it show the damage done by bigotry and hate, and the increased need for support of activists? No - that evidence already exists, and continues in the way of trauma and intergenerational trauma, and is exacerbated by resistance to change everywhere - see, for instance, Gabor  Maté’s  book  “The Myth of Normal”, many of Stan Grant’s books (one mentioned above, with links about the author as well), Chelsea Watego’s “Another Day in the Colony”, Thomas Hübl’s “Healing Collective Trauma”, and the many other books on this topic.

I am still committed to non-violence (which is not necessarily “nice”) for two reasons: 

1. It is more effective (note particularly this link from that article); 
2. I don’t want to do the same sort of action I am objecting to - i.e., although it is human and understandable to reach breaking points (see this), and in my opinion no-one without direct experience of receiving a particular form of discrimination has any right to comment on that aspect of reacting to that form of discrimination, I don’t want to cause pain, suffering and loss, which is a variation on the argument that nations that use the death penalty are demonstrating that they do not respect the right to life as they are doing what murderers have done: take life.
   

But I am aware that every human has a breaking point, and no-one should judge another for reaching their personal breaking point (and in many cases, reaching a breaking point means self harm - the solution to which is changing society, as action by the individual is only a localised band aid and others will be driven to that same point by the discrimination).

Should violence - including the violence of discrimination and oppression, both individual AND systemic - be resisted with appropriate means (and I note that we have reached the limits of education in many places - such as the USA) even if that includes violence? Yes - just as a shooter on a violent rampage should be stopped with as much force as is necessary for the safety of others, there are large scale atrocities that may need forceful action - such as the storming of the Bastille, the American War of Independence, or the war against Germany and Japan in the 1930s and 40s ... although peaceful options such as the people power protests in the Philippines are always better and thus preferable.

Should critics of individual reactions to discrimination, oppression, and other forms of abuse take a hike and have a bloody good look at themselves? 

YES! A thousand times YES!!!

Example extract from database: 

PS - there are some excellent comments about double standards in the context of sexual assault (witness testimony is sufficient to convict people on other crimes, but conviction of sexual assault is often ... “inconvenient” [in their minds - others, including me, would use very different words] for people in power) in this article. 

PPS - I will likely keep refining the wording of this post over time.

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.

Finally, remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing.