Grenzcamp 2002 Jena | discussion about the relationships between refugees and nonrefugees

discussion about the relationships between refugees and nonrefugees

von h., AG3F - 01.07.2002 17:01

some remarks and questions from the first meeting to the second round

mutual learning-process

of course, it does not exist a homogenous group of refugees neither of nonrefugees. a lot of differences in between are evident and this situation finally cannot lead to a clear "us" and "them". but we have to reflect the existing distinctions between refugees and nonrefugees according the respective social realities, the adequate priorities, interests and aims and concerning the approaches and forms of organisation.
a continous, mutual learning process is needed. the extrameetings and the camp in jena can intensify such efforts but not solve all questions. "this is not a summer revolution!"

1. who supports whom?

some nonrefugees: "sometimes we feel utilized as stupid supporters, when an argumentation is used, which obliged us to follow the ideas and campaigns of the victims (the affected refugees) because of 500 years of colonialism and because of existing racism..." some refugees: "we support you on a daily level against the racist structures and to build up an open society. and often we are used as alibi-refugees in campaigns of the german antiracist movement..."

we need more time for open and serious debates about tactical campaigns and longtermed aims (see point 4), in which way we want to refer to each other ... ((experiences we can find in the caravan (1 and 2 now), in the bordercamps, in the campaign against the residence-law, in antideportation-campaigns (case to case or stop deportation class-campaign), or in the questions about a new legalisation-campaign, which is raised now again by kanak attak.

2. identities ... and how to organise?

"if you talk to me, forget, that i am jewish ... and if you talk to me, never forget, that i am a jewish..." it was a quotation during the last meeting to express the ambivalences of identities and its way, how to deal with. the selforganisation of "affected"(oppressed) groups is necessary and important, if the respective oppressions should be pointed out and special demands and struggles should be developed.
for example black people or kurdish people or refugees organise themselves, because their justified interests are often not really represented in the general struggle for a better world and because for example white people, turkish people or nonrefugees dominate the structures and put their own interests to the top of the agendas.
groupspecific, "identical" organising in direction of selfempowerment serves as a fundamental base to develop a comprehensive point of view in a struggle for emancipation and liberation.
but these structures can lead into new dominations, nationalism or very limited particular interests, if concrete and simultanous steps for common interests and overlapping aims ("transidentity"?) are missing. mutual interest and open minds on one hand, transparency and mediation of the respective organising structures on the other hand could keep the balance in this ambivalent process.
to open space and time (separate meetings and organisational structures..) for specific interests and to respect it, and at the same time to create points of intersection, to interconnect and to ask for common perspectives. do we finally aim - in our context - to a multiethnic structure? or is our interest- in a more comprehensive sense - to come together in a multitude, seen as a horizontal networking process, which appreciates the respective autonomy and multiplicity of starting points and which tries to interconnect in common perspectives?
and/or: what is the meaning of transidentical process?

3. an example for "racism and genderrelations"

the white-red tape, which was used from women/lesbian-groups during the frankfurt-camp to separate an own area, has put a discussion to the table again:

some refugees have critisized this new "aera of exclusion" in a camp, where the participants claim to abolish all borders. and a thinkable conception, that also some other groups in a noborder-camp are interested for separated areas, sounds strange.
other people (women and men) have defended and justified this step of (mostly white) women: as a protected area, as a small part of the camp, where men have no access, because all male dominations and potential sexist insults and attacks should be excluded in this space.

the ambivalences, which were mentioned in point 3, are more or less similar tor this example of genderrelations.
the decision of the women should be respected, because they want to have or need this "area of identity-protection". and the fact, that these women participate in a mixed project like the camp, represents their general interest for interconnections or common practice.
on the other hand it would be useful to explain more concrete this decision to establish such a separate area. a bigger transparency is needed in particular for people, who do not know so much about the background.

moreover it would be necessary and useful, if the debates can be continued about the questions, which experiences are already existing concerning sexist insults and attacks and how to deal with, how to prevent, how to create transparency and debates around these questions.

4. common longterm aims and tactical campaigns and forms of action

"global justice and the abolishment of all forms of oppression and exploitation" could be a common but abstract longterm aim. it is perhaps not so important, if a basis-democratic, a communist or an anarchist point of view is behind it.
but more important for the experiences of the last years and the near future are questions about tactical campaigns, about the demands and the concrete practices.
particularly concerning the coming camp it seems to be useful to intensify the debates around the residence-law-campaign. to try to go deeper into conc rete questions, which can be transferred easily to other campaigns:

in which way this campaign was founded and launched, what were/are the central determinations? (refugees as subjects, scandalisation and accusation of human rights abuse, the term of apartheid as link to the situation in the countries of origin...???)
which role was/is given to supportinggroups, which expectations have existed?
did or does the campaign include a tactical width in direction of reformist/lobbyist initiatives/parties?
was or is a concrete expectation of success included or is it more or less an instrument for a selforganisational process?
was or is freedom of movement seen as a"revolutionary continuation" of the limited demand to abolish the residence-law?
what is the relationship to other antiracist campaigns? as addition, as part of a multiplicity or as a central focus?
which kind of actions were/are in favour and what is about the experiences/considerations to extend the civil disobidience?

24.05.2002