Anti-Racism in Canada

Taking Responsibility, Taking Direction, Sheila Wilmot

There aren’t a lot of white people in Canada writing about issues of how to be a white anti-racist in the Canadian context. Sheila Wilmot is one of the few who is, and that’s a good thing. Her book, Taking Responsibility, Taking Direction, has some solid history, information and analysis on the issues, and some ideas about how to be an effective white anti-racist – how to take responsibility for one’s own racism, for one’s own privilege, and do something about it, while taking direction from people of colour.

To quote from the publisher’s notes, Wilmot talks about how

…white progressives who aim to unite with people of colour against racist oppression must examine and possibly challenge their personal, political, and theoretical ideologies and acknowledge their privileged societal position, if they are to translate anti-racist ideas into effective action, and furthermore, help educate other "white folks" into taking up the cause in an informed manner.

The notes continue outlining her basic argument that

… it is essential that in the fight against white oppression, white leftists come to the table in solidarity, rather than come as silent aides, or the opposite—come and paternalistically and patronizingly appropriate the organization.

These are important things to say, and important things to place within the history and context of Canadian state imperialism and colonialism and racism, and within the history and context of past and present anti-racist movements and organizations in Canada, and because Wilmot does this, there is a great deal to be gained from this book.

However, while the information is good, the presentation and organisation of the book is flawed. It did not engage me the way writings about white anti-racism from such activists as Robert Jensen, Mab Segrest and Tim Wise have moved me, despite the fact that this book is set in my cultural context and almost all other writings I’ve encountered from white anti-racists have focused on the American context. There’s already a very detailed review on the net by blogger Scott Neigh, aka A Canadian Lefty in Occupied Land, that provides an excellent critique of what worked and what did not in this book, so I’m not going to go into great detail.

Essentially, the book seemed both to lack focus at times and to be too focused on minor issues at others. It’s clear that the author intended the book to be of interest both to people who are already heavily involved in anti-racism and other leftist social analysis and action and to those who are just becoming engaged with issues of social justice. Unfortunately, this results in some material being tedious to the reader with a long history of reading socialist, Marxist or anti-capitalist takes on colonialism and racism, while at other times addressing issues for which someone without a history in the Canadian left would have little context. At the same time, it’s a small book, trying to tackle a huge subject, and the choices of what to include and what to leave out are not always the choices I might have found most felicitous.

Wilmot is very strong in her understanding and integration of the intersectionality of oppressions, and provides insight into how racism, capitalism and sexism interact and how the privileges of whiteness, maleness and wealth combine. And at the conclusion of the book she provides some specific ideas for who white anti-racism organising that are well worth thinking about.

In short, a worthy but flawed first step toward a Canadian body of literature on white anti-racism.

What Does It Mean To Be a Failed State?

Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, Noam Chomsky

I would hope that Noam Chomsky would need no introduction here, but just in case, this is what Wikipedia says about him (at least today) in its article on the Politics of Noam Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky is a widely known intellectual, political activist, and critic of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist, a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism and is considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of American politics.

In this new book, Chomsky looks at the idea of the “failed state” that has been circulating in various circles as a justification for intervention in any number of ways, including militarily, in the internal affairs of countries. Failed states are bad, the argument goes, because they do not or cannot protect their own people and may contribute to the destabilisation of other countries they interact with, and therefore it is justified for other powers to unilaterally intervene in these states to bring about the betterment of both the people’s circumstances and the global political scene. The US has repeatedly unilaterally intervened in a vast number of allegedly failed states during its history, ostensibly in support of its goal to bring democracy and freedom to the world.

Chomsky turns the magnifying glass around and examines the case for arguing that the United States of America is in fact a failed state. He begins with a reasonable definition of a failed state as one that is unable "to provide security for the population, to guarantee rights at home or abroad, or to maintain functioning (not merely formal) democratic institutions." He goes on to consider the linked concept of a “rogue nation” – one that acts in defiance of international law, and therefore may require intervention to bring it into compliance – and considers whether the US may also be considered to be a rogue state.

In arguing that the US does in fact fit the generally accepted criteria for both a failed state and a rogue nation, Chomsky details page after page of evidence and incident to demonstrate that the US does a poor job in all of these areas: providing adequately for its populace, guaranteeing their rights, maintaining a functioning democracy or obeying international law. Even a review in the New York Times concedes that “It's hard to imagine any American reading this book and not seeing his country in a new, and deeply troubling, light.”

Since I was more or less in accord with Chomsky’s thesis even before reading the book (and I should note that, while the US does a spectacularly poor job of being a functioning democratic nation and adhering to the principles of international law, similar arguments can, in my opinion, be brought against many of today’s modern economically and militarily imperialist states, my own included), I look on it personally as an excellent reference book if you’re trying to point out some of the issues that the left has with American domestic circumstances and foreign policy. But it’s a great tool to use if you want to encourage someone else to look at the questions Chomsky raises and consider their own thinking about what really defines a state as one that has failed.