Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Parti des Indigènes de la République Against Mixed Marriage in Name of Race Struggle.

with 26 comments

There have been reports that the Parti des Indigènes de la République – much admired in the English speaking world by a fraction of the left, such as the US journal ironically titled Jacobin and Richard Seymour (often for their hatred of Charlie Hebdo) has been in the news recently.

In the May Issue of Le Monde Diplomatique Serge Halmi cited this statement by their spokesperson, Mme Houria Bouteldja.

« La perspective décoloniale, explique-t-elle, c’est d’abord de nous aimer nous-mêmes, de nous accepter, de nous marier avec une musulmane ou un musulman, un Noir ou une Noire. Je sais que cela semble une régression, mais je vous assure que non, c’est un pas de géant. »

The de(anti)colonial standpoint, she explained, is above all to love each other, to love our own, to marry with a Muslim man or woman, a black person with a black person. I realise this may seem a step backwards, but I can assure you it’s a giant step forward.

These are some of their tweets (hat-Tip K)

The Tweets read: the integration of whites into the marginalised is as impossible as the integration of the ‘indigenous’ into the republic.

For us races do not represent a theoretical concept, but a relation of struggle.

A white person converted to Islam can de-convert: but an Arab, even perfectly atheist, remains a Muslim.

For us there is a relation of force between the races, the aim of our organisation is to bring this relation in out favour .

When a White asks, How do you see the link between races and classes, one should not reply.

The struggle against domination, goes through the abandoning of privileges in favour of the privileges of others.

 

L’antisémitisme des Indigènes de la République

L'antisémitisme des Indigènes de la République

For more information see above.

The article largely refers to this:  Racisme (s) et philosémitisme d’Etat ou comment politiser l’antiracisme en France ?

 

Written by Andrew Coates

June 1, 2015 at 1:57 pm

26 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Something I wrote a few years back that might have some relevance. I have occasionally asked supporters of the idea of official multiculturalism whether, if logically applied, the concept would argue against relationships between people of the various discrete groups, only to be told that this isn’t the case. Yet the emphasised identification of people by race or ethnicity does point in that direction.

    Bigotry, Oppression and Assimilation

    From New Interventions, Volume 8, no 3, Spring 1998, signed Arthur Trusscott.

    Nick Howard, the son of the former Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard, is into evangelism in a big way. A recent convert from Judaism to Christianity, he wants others to take his path, and set up a debate at the Oxford University Christian Union with Rabbi Shmuely Boteach, only to find the Rabbi pulling out, calling Howard Junior’s antics ‘spiritual Nazism’.

    Boteach’s response does nothing to help understand Hitler’s crimes. How can a college debate be compared with mass murder? But Boteach is not alone. Not so long ago, a former President of the World Zionist Organisation said:

    ‘The danger represented to the survival of the Jewish people by the integration of Jewish communities into the people among whom they live is greater than that constituted by external threats, anti-Semitism or persecution.’

    To an internationalist like myself, this kind of strange thinking defies logic. How can the integration of people of one national or ethnic group into another be compared to, let alone be worse than, their being oppressed, or, in the case of the Jews, being subjected to a systematic attempt to exterminate them altogether?

    Ultimately, those who define themselves along religious or national lines fear their followers turning either to another identity, or to a secular humanistic outlook, more than they fear oppression at the hands of bigots. That’s why priests and nationalists of all stripes can’t handle either the puny threat to their positions posed by the likes of Nick Howard or the real threat to their worldview posed by the grand liberatory vision fought for by generations of socialists.

    This episode reminded me of a pamphlet produced a little while back by the Kurdistan Solidarity Committee on behalf of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), entitled Kurdistan and the Gulf War. Arguing in favour of a Kurdish state, and against autonomy for Kurds within existing state boundaries, it says that ‘ethnicity and separatism’, rather than assimilation, autonomy and integration, ‘is the most potent force in world politics today’. Therefore:

    ‘Kurds can and will no more assimilate into Turkish and Arab society than Jews were able to assimilate into gentile society in Germany, Russia or Eastern Europe and the Arab countries. Assimilation is… a dogmatic prejudice lacking any scientific ethnological basis and substantiation. It presupposes that a nation can surrender its culture, language and tradition and become extinct.’

    Socialists oppose forced assimilation of people and deliberate moves to suppress cultures, but are certainly not opposed to differing cultures mixing and assimilating in a voluntary manner. The nasty taste left by the PKK’s support for ethnic purity is made worse by the fact that the PKK calls itself a Marxist organisation. Does the PKK consider that Kurds living in Ankara, Frankfurt or London must keep themselves strictly separate from the indigenous population? What if a PKK member had children with a non-Kurd: would he or she be disciplined for miscegenation?

    Dr Paul

    June 1, 2015 at 4:10 pm

  2. “Anti-miscegenation laws or miscegenation laws were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races. Such laws were first introduced in North America from the late seventeenth century onwards by several of the Thirteen Colonies, and subsequently by many US states and US territories and remained in force in many US states until 1967. After the Second World War, an increasing number of states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the remaining anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany as part of the Nuremberg laws, and in South Africa as part of the system of Apartheid. In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have been termed “miscegenation” since the term was coined in 1863. Contemporary usage of the term is less frequent, except to refer to historical laws banning the practice.”

    Andrew Coates

    June 1, 2015 at 5:16 pm

  3. The PKK’s views were as wrong as any Paul.

    I wonder if they still hold them.

    Andrew Coates

    June 1, 2015 at 5:17 pm

  4. The PKK had a poor reputation with some Turkish left-wingers. One Turkish left communist I know, who’s not into gossip, reckoned that they raised funds by hard-drug-running, and other people have said much the same to me. He told me that they justified it on the basis that only the lumpen proletariat were addicts, so drug-running didn’t damage the proletarian cause. Have you heard anything of this? The above left communist also was not at all surprised when I told him about the implicitly racist consequences of the bit I quoted from the pamphlet. The PKK also had a reputation for iron discipline and authoritarianism, and a worshipful attitude towards the ganzer-macher, Oçalan. He has, so I’ve read variously, shifted to a libertarian leftist orientation. How true this is I don’t know. On the other hand, they have been putting up a stiff fight against the ISIS lunatics, which is to their credit.

    Dr Paul

    June 1, 2015 at 5:39 pm

  5. It was the latter that won me over.

    Like many I am well aware of their background.

    Andrew Coates

    June 1, 2015 at 5:44 pm

  6. bahar mustafa type thinking again. yawn.

    this is for Sue R, about galloway’s hat; Galloway recognized as a fashion guru.

    http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/jun/01/hats-indoors-doff-my-cap-to-george-galloway-fedora-mayor

    dean

    June 1, 2015 at 6:40 pm

  7. Dean: You mistake me sir, if you think I come from the reaches of society that knows about ‘etiquette’ or gives a stuff. My point is that it is rather peculiar in an ‘intimate shot’ of him almost playing with his son (or is it grandson?), he is still wearing a hat; a sign of formality. The article by Hadley Freeman is sarcastic, she actually describes it as ‘tosser fashion’. Isn’t Hadley Freeman one of the many people he is suing?

    Sue R

    June 1, 2015 at 7:33 pm

  8. We have had running gun battles in Haringey between rival Kurdish drug gangs. Corpses turning up dead in cars. It’s Chicago 1936 all over again.

    Sue R

    June 1, 2015 at 7:34 pm

  9. Maybe the Georgeous One has an ambition to become a race horse trainer? They all wear those fedoras, but probably not in the bedroom. He has some equine skills, after all he’s been flogging a dead horse for years.

    Sue R

    June 1, 2015 at 7:44 pm

  10. I imagine Hadley Freeman is jealous she can’t get a man like Galloway. hell hath no fury…

    dean

    June 1, 2015 at 8:46 pm

  11. Birmingham Trades Council has just circulated a flyer for a meeting organised by West Midlands Palestine Solidarity Campaign, at which Ghada Karmi will discuss her latest book, ‘Return’; the flyer includes this quote from then book:

    “I travelled up and down the country of my birth, looking at the remnants of the old Palestine and at what its new occupants had wrought in the years since our flight in 1948. I was barely able to comprehend the changed landscape of what had been an Arab place, its new inhabitants speaking an alien language, their looks a motley assortment of European, Asian, African, and any mixture of these.”

    Just in case anyone who has a socialist background makes the mistake of assuming that Karmi naturally approves of such racial and cultural integration, I can assure you she doesn’t: “It was a momentous journey that had filled me with bitterness and grief.”

    Jim Denham

    June 1, 2015 at 9:15 pm

  12. That’s the problem with nationalism — whether of the oppressor or of the oppressed — it opens to the door to racial politics.

    Dr Paul

    June 1, 2015 at 10:05 pm

  13. Dr Paul, re Kurdish gangsters. Haringey has become like 1930s Chicago with the shooting wars between rival smuggling gangs, both Kurd and Eastern European. Apparently, the Albanians/Kosovans are big in the Haringey Underworld these days as well. Its all a consequence of intractable civil wars, nationalisms and continental motorways.

    Sue R

    June 1, 2015 at 10:27 pm

  14. […] Source: Parti des Indigènes de la République Against Mixed Marriage in Name of Race Struggle. […]

  15. Just one note. Jacobin is not a publication which speaks with one voice. Its contributors have been known to disagree with each other. To condemn the whole publication because of one article doesn’t strike me as politically intelligent.

    jschulman

    June 2, 2015 at 1:58 am

  16. So, Parti des Indigènes de la République, does this apply to gay marriage?

    Paul Canning

    June 2, 2015 at 4:05 am

  17. The Parti des Indigènes de la République ( Houria Bouteldja) are infamous for declaring that ” le mode de vie homosexuel n’existe pas dans les quartiers populaires ” – the homosexual way of life does not exist on the Estates.

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indig%C3%A8nes_de_la_R%C3%A9publique

    They also have an obsessive hatred of gay secularist Caroline Fourest,

    http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2012/09/16/caroline-fourest-chahutee-a-la-fete-de-l-huma_846644

    Andrew Coates

    June 2, 2015 at 10:07 am

  18. If Jacobin published a single article by, say, Marine Le Pen, I would imagine that people would feel differently.

    Andrew Coates

    June 2, 2015 at 10:09 am

  19. “…but if that Jacobin were to publish an ARTICLE by that MARINE LE PEN, then I’d say: OI! JACOBIN! NO!!!…” [etc. etc.]

    Francis

    June 2, 2015 at 5:09 pm

  20. Well Francis I hated them for their bullying and shouting down of Caroline Fourest – something that happened about 3 years ago and was (apart from report linked to above) described by a comrade in the PCF on Facebook to us, and who was there at the time.

    It was covered on this Blog – one of the few English language sources that have given accounts of Caroline Fourest’s writings.

    Caroline Fourest: A Feminist Against Multiculturalism.

    https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/caroline-fourest-a-feminist-against-multiculturalism/

    But the general tenor of the Indigènes stuff is well known.

    Re-Jacobin though, it’s pretty minor compared to some of the things Counterpunch have done (mates with the Putin, polycentric crowd is only one of the least of them).

    Andrew Coates

    June 2, 2015 at 5:17 pm

  21. Jesus HC – This! >> http://socialistunity.com/sepp-blatters-re-election-is-a-victory-for-democracy/

    Good comment below:

    ” The mental gymnastics involved reminds me a little of Tony Soprano’s rationalisation of the mafia as a quasi socialist, Italian immigrant self-help organisation in the face of the racism of American society.”

    Jim made this great comparison with Rahman as well.

    If you haven’t seen it here is John Oliver impaling Blatter and all he stands for>

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr6ar3xJL_Q

    Paul Canning

    June 2, 2015 at 5:36 pm

  22. Thanks for that Andrew. I just read her words [http://www.decolonialtranslation.com/english/gay-universalism-homoracialism-and-marriage-for-all.html].

    None of what she writes is new. I have encountered it before, almost entirely from Western activists who enjoy self-flagellation and, to continue that theme, act like cultists.

    ‘Global south’ LGBT activists can resent clumsy westerners in my experience but they do not reject gay identities or the notion of universal norms – far from it. They certainly do not always agree, this is vital to understanding and something she does not get as she applies blankets to cover all experiences. Her attitude is commonly a *Western* one.

    What is noticeable is her disregard for those ‘Indigènes’ (on that term more in a tick) who do come out and who do identify as LGB or T – and who disagree with her. Like Louis George Tin, who I know, who started the International Day Against Homophobia and who has done great work in international bodies and who is black. Or to the black Minister whose name escapes me who was the marriage bills main driver.

    What is clear is that it is these people she hates the most. Those who are ‘Indigènes’ and who dare to proclaim a ‘colonial identity’ – gay. As well, she actually claims to speak for them!

    The end result of all her waffle is the closet for her community’s LGBT people. That is all it amounts to.

    I would bet that some of those people have told her where to get off. I’ll be Google Translating so any ideas?

    Note: This is the same message coming from the ‘pinkwashing’ crowd to gay Palestinians. Shut up. Be quiet. Go away. Submit.

    * ‘Indigènes’ Can you explain to me Andrew? Does this translate to ‘indigenous’? Because if it does then the people who are black and Muslim in France are not that. ‘Indigenous’ has a very specific, globally agreed meaning – aboriginal, Native American etc. It has a very, very limited meaning in Africa – is that the source of confusion? Anyone adopting ‘indigenous’ outside this definition is as abusive as a white Australian calling themselves ‘indigenous’ – which often happens!

    Her note cites the French colonial context but this just doubles the insult. White people have called black people a lot of things. Is this meant to be ‘reclaiming’, as in ‘queer’? If so it just insults another whole lot of people.

    Paul Canning

    June 2, 2015 at 6:28 pm

  23. ‘Multiculturalism’ is just apartheid with a nice business-friendly name. It’s another method the bosses use to divide and distract workers. We must destroy the chimera of ‘multiculturalism’ and in it place institute a thorough-going cosmopolitanism.

  24. […] In singing the praises of “unmixed” marriage,16 Bouteldja makes as if the act of conversion to Islam, for a white, would amount to an […]

  25. Reblogged this on oogenhand.

    oogenhand

    July 30, 2015 at 3:51 pm

  26. […] Order.” (Bouteldja might even agree with Montsalvat on the topic of miscegenation, since she opposes interracial marriage in the name of race […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: