Category Archives: Anarchist

Hilary Klein on “Compañeras: Zapatista Women’s Stories”

http://hilaryklein.org/
Download This Episode

This week, William spoke with Hilary Klein, author/editor of the new book “Compañeras: Zapatista Women’s Stories”, out from Seven Stories Press.

Over the hour, Hilary talks about her 7 years of living in Chiapas and recording the stories and experiences of women there, collecting stories on their behalf. The book covers the Zapatistas experiences before the EZLN uprising of 1994, during that period and after. Discussion address what gender, indigeneity and class looked like and how that’s changed in the Zapatista communities, the state of Chiapas and in Mexico. William and Hilary also explore the effects that the EZLN & La Otra Compaña have had on radicals and anarchists abroad, the origins of the EZLN, some parallels and distinctions between anarchism and Zapatismo and much more.

More writings by Hilary (and links to the book) can be found at http://hilaryklein.org/

Playlist

. … . ..

Transcription

TFSR: Will you first introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about what you do?

Hillary Klein: Yes. Thank you so much for inviting me to share this time with you and your listeners. My name is Hillary and I currently work at an organization called the Center for Popular Democracy, which is a national network of community based organizations working for racial justice, economic justice, and immigrant rights. I’ve been doing social justice work for a long time, but that included several years that I spent in Chiapas, Mexico, working with Zapatista communities in indigenous villages, and specifically with women’s projects. So I feel like it’s all connected, because whether it’s here in the US or whether it’s abroad, I feel like it’s all one vision of a world of greater justice and greater dignity. The book that I wrote came out of that experience working with women’s cooperatives and women’s projects in the Zapatista communities.

TFSR: So you went to Chiapas through your work?

HK: Not in the sense of for a job. I went to Chiapas was actually in 1997 thinking that I was just going to stay for a couple of weeks or maybe a couple months. So, I was there originally as a human rights observer and as a volunteer on solidarity projects, but it was such a compelling movement and such a fascinating time. I felt like history was kind of unfolding before my eyes. How could I not say and witnessed it or be part of it in some way? So I ended up staying, and I stayed on, and I ended up staying about six years. Much longer than I had expected. So, I was there from 1997 till about 2003. So I’ve been back in the US for a little more than 10 years doing what I consider to be the same work, but it’s not actually like I was working for the same organization or anything.

TFSR: I do want to talk to you more about your time in Chiapas in a later question. But just to lay some solid groundwork for any listeners who are unfamiliar, would you be willing to talk us through some historical bullet points of the Zapatista movement?

HK: Yeah, of course. So the Zapatista movement is also called the EZLN, which is a Spanish acronym for the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. It’s primarily a social movement, a very broad grassroots radical social movement in southern Mexico, fighting for indigenous rights for land, but for also for a whole kind of host of broader demands that I think are very universal in the sense of: for dignity, for justice, for equality, for democracy, and has really resonated with people around the world.

So, in addition to being a social movement, it also has a rebel army. They did choose the path of armed struggle. After many years of fighting for change in their own context, out of a sense of desperation, seeing children die from preventable diseases, for example, they chose the path of armed struggle, feeling like they had no option left but to stand up for themselves and force the government to listen. The communities and Chiapas are historically extremely poor, extremely marginalized. That’s really a legacy from colonialism. The history of racism, the history of economic exploitation, all that goes back, more than 500 years. Those legacies are still things that those communities are facing today.

The Zapatista movement comes out of that history of 500 + years of indigenous resistance, it also comes out of the legacy of the Mexican Revolution. So the name Zapatista comes from Zapata. Emiliano Zapata was a hero of the Mexican Revolution who fought for ‘Tierra y Libertad,’ land and freedom. So they very much carried on that banner. But they also recognize that neoliberalism or global capitalism, whichever you want to call it, is kind of the current political and economic system, which reproduces many of those same legacies of inequality, of injustice, and exploitation that began with colonialism.

So, they actually rose up in arms on January 1 1994. That was the same day that NAFTA, which is the North American Free Trade Agreement, went into effect. They chose that day to highlight that relationship with global capitalism, with neoliberalism. So that’s where many of us around the world first heard of the Zapatistas. For myself, speaking personally, it was really an important moment. It came kind of at the tail end of the Cold War. So there was this question in the air for people of my generation, I was 19 at the time in 1994, of what the next wave of social movements would look like after the end of the Cold War. The capitalists were claiming victory, free trade – the market won. So it was really inspiring to see this model of this example of what a new social movement might look like. It’s really inspired people ever since then. So that was 20 + years ago.

After that very brief armed uprising, the Zapatistas have not used their weapons ever since then. They do still have an insurgent army. That’s, I think, an important thing to know about them in terms of their character as a very militant movement. But it’s also in reality, it’s much more of a broad social movement, in terms of its actions, and has become much more known for peaceful mobilizations, for political marches and other actions, for convening civil society. Mexican as well as international civil society, to come together and talk about the different problems that we face different strategies of how we can find solutions collectively and build a world of of greater dignity and justice.

It’s also become very known for its project of indigenous autonomy. So in its own territory, in eastern Chiapas, they’ve developed autonomous governments, their own health care and education systems. They have a whole system of economic cooperatives, which have developed an economy that’s based on cooperation and solidarity, rather than one that’s based on on profit.

TFSR: I was really struck by… because there’s lots of parts in your book, and a lot of its interview based, but I remember reading that the Zapatistas would come down from the mountains posing as teachers, or whoever, and just start talking to people. And it has so much an emphasis on people talking to each other and being like, “why are you so poor? Why don’t you have as much to eat as you need? Why do you need to do all this work?” Trying to get people’s wheels turning.

HK: Definitely. I think that that same concept that you’re pointing out, of dialogue, I think has been really important within the Zapatista movement. But also, when I mentioned convening civil society at the national or international level, I think that same concept of dialogue that you’re describing has really been important in terms of how the Zapatistas have engaged with people around Mexico and around the world. Using that same process of listening to each other, of asking questions that really makes each other think, “Why is this injustice the case? What can we do about it?” And so I think that that’s been one of the ways it’s been so effective for them to spark people responding by organizing in their own contexts around the world.

TFSR: And it seems like those conversations were extremely non coercive, meaning that people were like, “Oh, there’s this meeting where people are talking about it, come to it if you want.”

HK: I think that’s right. So, when I mentioned that 1994 was the Zapatista uprising, the very brief uprising, they had actually been organized in clandestine way for 10 years before that, from 1983 to 1994. 1983 is when the EZLN was formed in the mountains of the jungles of Chiapas. So for the next 10 years, they were doing exactly what you’re describing, talking to people in the villages, asking them questions, encouraging them to organize. There was very strong movements in Chiapas like I mentioned. People turn to armed struggle, because they had already been, many people who became Zapatistas, had been engaged for years and years in campesino movements, for example, or indigenous rights movements, asking for land reform from the government, for example, and really seeing no response.

The Zapatistas often referred to themselves, and have been called, ‘the voice of the voiceless.’ So it’s really the sense of very, very marginalized, kind of forgotten corner of Mexico and people making this decision to take their own destiny into their own hands. So I think when the original core guerrilla nucleus that formed in 1983, began to really reach out for people in the villages. It just was a very fertile moment for people to say, “Yes, it’s time. We need to take this to a whole other level and demand our rights and do that in a determined and courageous way.”

TFSR: I’d love to talk a little bit about your book, which is called ‘*Compañeras: Zapatista Women’s Stories,*’ and it is heavily interview based, drawn from interviews, many of which you conducted yourself, with people who directly experienced working with the EZLN and you mentioned that you lived in Chiapas itself from 1997 to 2003. Would you talk a little bit about more about your time living in Zapatista communities in Chiapas?

HK: Like I mentioned, when I went down there I wasn’t planning to stay for so long. But one of the reasons that I felt like history was kind of unfolding before my eyes… The Zapatistas movement in itself was incredibly inspiring to me at that time. I was so struck by it. But in particular, the role of women has always been crucial. I think this is true for many social movements. This had been my experience, personally, as well as something I had studied was the experience of women within many social movements, where on the one hand, there’s this opportunity, and you are engaged in this whole new way, and at the same time, even within that social movement, women have had to fight for their own rights within that to defend themselves.

So, I have had this kind of long standing interest in women’s participation in radical and revolutionary social movements. So when I got to Chiapas, it was that particular aspect of history, that was unfolding before my eyes were, on the one hand, women have played a critical role in the Zapatista movement from the very beginning, and at the same time, had to push for a lot of changes internally. There was a lot that was still evolving and unfolding. I was very struck by that combination of these amazing, strong, courageous, inspiring women leaders. And also the participation of women within the Zapatista movement was continuing to evolve. That was what compelled me to stay for so much longer.

I got involved with the women’s cooperatives in particular, because it’s an economic space for women to generate resources collectively and invest those resources back into their communities. But because it’s an all-women’s space. There are all women’s collectives, and all men’s collective, that really stems from, because gendered division of labor still exists to a large degree. So women’s collectives tend to be artisan collectives, or vegetable gardens, or chicken raising collectives.

Because they are all-women’s spaces, they’re also really an area where women oftentimes come to voice and come to their own sense of power for the first time. It’s the first time they might be participating outside of the home or learning to speak up. So it’s kind of like a springboard for women’s involvement in other ways in the Zapatista movement.

So that was the kind of work that I was drawn to. This coworker and I developed a project kind of hand in hand with the Zapatista women leaders, their kind of regional representative. So we had sort of an ongoing conversation with them about what might be useful, and what would be helpful for us to do as outsiders, and develop this project of supporting women’s cooperatives and women’s regional organizing in general. So that was what I did for most of the time that I was there in Chiapas.

TFSR: Apart from artisanal stuff and vegetable gardening, and what were some of the projects that the women’s collective did?

HK: They were each organized around whatever different economic activity they decide. This is just one way that women are organized. But in particular, in economic cooperatives, women often talk about how the first step is to get together as a women’s meeting or women’s assembly and decide to form a cooperative, and then decide what type of cooperatives they want to form. So, they might decide, for example, to start a vegetable garden or to start a chicken raising collective and they’ll each contribute something like one peso each to buy seeds and start the vegetable garden, or they each contribute one hen, and then that’s how they start to chicken raising collective.

Some of the ones that are most common… Those ones that we mentioned, the artisan cooperatives, tend to be for outside consumption, so they sell more to an external market. A lot of the other ones are really more geared towards internal consumption. So even as they’re generating resources, with vegetable gardens for example, they’re addressing nourishment in their communities. That’s a big source of health problems, because people have historically had a pretty limited diet. In addition to generating those resources, they’re also producing for local consumption.

Another example of that is sometimes the women open collective stores. Because some of these villages are very isolated, it also allows people in the villages to buy from a local store, instead of having to travel just for basic goods. So, individuals don’t have to travel two or four or six hours to the closest city. The cooperative store does that buying and selling. So it’s making a little bit of money, but it’s also providing that service to the local community. And then the women collectively decide how they want to spend those resources. So they might be responding to emergencies, like if one woman is very sick, they can help her out, or if there’s a political mobilization, or they might decide to invest in the autonomous school.

So, there’s a lot of different ways, but that decision making process also is very important. It’s another way that is very empowering for the women who are involved to be engaged in, “Okay, we’ve generated these resources. Now, what do we want to do with the resources that we’ve generated?”

TFSR: The issue of food is so important, because it seems that so many of the women that you interviewed are indigenous women, and who were born into what I might call, a kind of indentured servitude. Is that completely inaccurate? Food was a very, very restricted resource for people who were subsistence farming to sustain themselves, but they were given for the most part infertile land or lands that just nothing would grow on.

HK: Yeah, absolutely. Some of what we were talking about earlier in terms of the legacies of colonialism have to do exactly with what you’re talking about, where the land that historically had belonged to indigenous peasants, was basically stolen from them. And ever since colonialism has existed, it has been really concentrated in the hands of a very few wealthy families in Chiapas that are basically European descended. Even though there have been some stages of land reform in Mexican history. Some of the biggest fincas, in a lot of parts of Latin America they’re called haciendas, in Chiapas are called fincas, they’re basically large plantations. When we think about the South in the United States, for example, the plantations, that historic cotton picking plantations.That type of economy. Where in Chiapas, they weren’t literally slaves, but like you said, they were basically indentured servants.

So, even though those exact same structures didn’t exist anymore, it looked very similar in terms of the indigenous peasants having either to live and work full time on the fincas, or they have these very small plots of land up kind of on the rocky mountainside where basically nothing grew. So land and the food that they produced was just a huge source of inequity, or manifestation of that inequity, the injustice that people were living with. People actually talk about the hunger months, ‘el tiempo de hambre’, when their corn had run out from one season and they hadn’t harvested the corn from the next season and there’s this kind of gap in between where they just literally didn’t have enough to eat.

So, that’s kind of historically what people were dealing with. It was just so very core to people’s lives and people’s experiences.

TFSR: You mentioned that you came over to Chiapas. Could you speak about writing on this topic from the perspective of a relative outsider? Could you talk about how that influenced your approach?

HK: So at the tail end of the time that I was there, one of the projects that I worked on before I left was an internal document where the women wanted to record their own stories. I think Zapatista women recognize that they’ve been part of something pretty historic, and they wanted to record that for themselves. But they also really wanted to use it as a tool for education for organizing with other women. So I did that project, which was really amazing. You mentioned earlier, that a lot of the books is heavily based on interviews that I did with different women. And so a lot of the interviews were kind of throughout the time that I was there. But a lot of them were particularly from this time period, when I was doing this project with the women that was initially just for themselves. But once we finished it, and they have this product, which was like a popular education manual. It was really geared towards them not only having their own stories documented, but being able to kind of use it to educate and organize other women. They themselves said, “You know what? We actually really want to share these stories with an outside world as well. And how do you feel about doing something like this book, but for an outside audience?”

I tell that whole story, because I feel like your question is coming from this really important place of what is the role of an outsider in writing a book like this. I had spent several years at that point, working very closely with the Zapatistas very much always as an outsider, right? It’s not my community. It’s not my context. But I was very close with the communities at that point. I would not have felt like it was appropriate for me to go and publish this book or share their stories if it hadn’t been specifically a request or a suggestion that came originally from them.

I felt like it was important personally, because in this country so much has been written about the Zapatistas, but very little about women and even less in their own words. So even though it is my book, I felt like my role was much more as a cultural bridge to create a vehicle for women to share their own stories. So the book contains a lot of my own writing, where I introduce the women or I share historical background or some context, but my intention was always to do that as a foundation for an outside audience to be able to then engage with the women’s stories from having the necessary background, but then to hear really directly from them.

So, like you said, the book is very heavily based on these interviews. And that was really the most important thing to me. And so just going back more concretely, to your question, I think that I, as an outsider, did have the ability to kind of create that bridge, especially in an audience in this country, but like I said, very much coming from a commitment to create the space for the women to kind of tell their own stories and people to hear as directly as possible. Because I had been so incredibly touched, and moved, and inspired by all these women that I had worked with over the years. Their stories of transformation, their stories of struggle, their stories of courage had been so meaningful to me, that when they were the ones that suggested that to me, it was such an honor to think of me creating that vehicle for them to share the stories with a broader audience.

TFSR: Yeah, for sure. And speaking as another outsider, it was really amazing to be able to read their experiences in their own words. So I’ve strongly benefited from that. It’s a pretty incredible experience to be able to do that.

HK: I mean, the fact that you have that experience of it makes me feel like I accomplished what I set out to do.

TFSR: It’s amazing that because Zapatismo has, like you said, so many visible female leaders like Comandanta Ramona comes to mind, but there hasn’t been much written about Zapatista women.

HK: Yeah, there has been some stuff written for sure. There is stuff out there, but relative to how much has been written overall about the Zapatista movement, I feel like there was a real gap. What’s been written about Zapatista women I feel like hasn’t been thorough. So, I really felt like it was important to me.

TFSR: Will you speak to the political roots of Zapatismo. It seems to me that there were some strongly Maoist communist and militaristic currents in there. Since this is an anarchist radio show, I feel like I should ask that question to clarify that for the listening audience?

HK: One thing I think that is very fascinating, I think specifically from an anarchist perspective is that Zapatismo is a blend of many different political traditions. Political and also historical and cultural traditions that didn’t come out specifically of an anarchist trajectory, but ends up having a lot in common with anarchism. I think anarchists around the world have really related to the Zapatistas because of some of these core principles that the Zapatistas have come to represent, including not trying to take State power, that they instead believe in kind of creating power from below, creating alternative institutions to the State and having a lot of very horizontal structures. And then all the stuff that we’re talking about, about indigenous autonomy, and having a critique not only of the State, but of the whole political system, and they’ve been very clear that they’re not going to turn into a political party. Which was a path that many Central American guerrilla movements too and eventually converted into political parties.

But in terms of the roots, which you were asking about. So that’s all to say that the end product of Zapatismo has a lot in common with anarchism, but it came from all these very different places and political historical roots. One of the things that I think is so unique, and to the Zapatistas credit, has been their ability to draw the best of different political traditions. We were talking a little bit earlier about the history of the Zapatista movement, there was this core nucleus of Marxist guerrillas that came out of the student movement in the 60’s in the 70’s throughout Mexico. They went down and formed that initial guerrilla nucleus that we were talking about in 1983. But they really began to interact with the Campesino movements, the Indigenous movements in Chiapas at the time, with the Catholic Church, which was very heavily influenced by Liberation Theology, like you said, there was Maoist groups down there at the time. I think what the Zapatistas were able to do, was to blend all that into something that was kind of new and unique, that I would now call Zapatismo that came from these very different political threads.

I think a lot of the more horizontal aspects came from the history of the indigenous communities themselves. The original core of Zapatistas who were not from Chiapas, which we’re only a handful of people really. I mean, numerically speaking, the Zapatista movement is pretty much all indigenous peasants from Chiapas, but there was this original group that came from elsewhere to kind of start, at that time, their vision was much more like the the vision of the Cuban revolution.

In some of the really poetic writing about the Zapatistas themselves and how they’ve described themselves, Marcos, for example, who is a male non-indigenous leader that was the spokesperson for the Zapatista movement for many years. He talks eloquently about that process of indigenization of the Zapatista Army in some ways. So if people are interested, I definitely encourage them to look up some of those writings or descriptions of that process. They are very fascinating.

TFSR: Apparently, I heard that Subcomandante Marcos, who was like the leader of the Zapatista movement, abolished himself as a Subcomandante. Did you hear about that? And is that true?

HK: It is true. It’s funny because he… I don’t mean this to sound dismissive. I feel like everything he does, he sort of has to do with a flourish. So even the way that you describe it as like, “He abolished himself.” He basically, in practical terms, what he was doing was kind of passing off the reins to other, indigenous leaders. Which I think is great. It was time for that to happen.

The indigenous communities had chosen Marcos as their spokesperson, I think they legitimately recognized that he would be able to play the role of reaching out to the world, and he’s a very poetic, very philosophical, charismatic, kind of articulate leader. And at the same time, it feels right that it was time to kind of pass on those reins to the local, indigenous leadership. So it was about a year ago, he said that Marcus had died and reemerged as Galeano. Galeano was the name of a man who was killed about a year ago in an attack against one of the Zapatista communities. And so, he renamed himself Galeano, in honor of the person who had been killed. And at the same time, said that it was time for him to kind of pass this on to other leadership.

So there’s a new Subcomandante, who now has that role. It’s kind of an interesting dual role of military leader and spokesperson. The Subcomandante is not actually the political leader of the EZLN, there’s a political body of leaders, which is kind of chosen by all the different communities. There’s different layers, each community has an assembly, and then each region has an assembly, and they kind of choose their representatives at each of those levels. So, at the highest level is the political comandantes, which is a collective body of leadership, the political leadership of the EZLN. Actually the subcomandante is called subcomandante, because he is under their direct command. So the military leadership is underneath the command of the political leadership.

But because he’s also the spokesperson, it’s the person that people most often kind of associate with the Zapatista movement. Then what we were speaking about earlier, in terms of not hearing from women, part of that is because there has been this one person who has been kind of the most well known leader of the Zapatista movement who also happens to be a man. It’s just that’s like the one, if people have generally heard of one Zapatista, it’s usually Subcomandante Marcos.

TFSR: You write in chapter one of your book that the injustices that people faced were the roots of the Zapatista revolutionary movement. To that end, would you describe general conditions that the women you spoke to faced before the influence of the Zapatistas?

HK: Yeah, definitely. So Comandanta Esther, who was another one of the powerful women Zapatista leaders, she one time spoke before the Mexican Congress in 2001. It was the first time an indigenous woman had ever spoken to the Mexican Congress, which itself is startling. So, she spoke to the Mexican Congress, and she talked about women Chiapas being exploited or oppressed three times over, she said, “first, because we’re poor, second, because we’re indigenous, and third, because we’re women.” I think that really gets at the heart, we were already talking about some of the legacies of colonialism. Indigenous women deal with all of that. They deal with the racism, they deal with the poverty, they deal with economic exploitation, but then they also deal with gender discrimination.

The way you framed it, before the influence of the Zapatista movement, just as sort of an extraordinary level of lack of rights in the sense that they were pretty much confined to their home, couldn’t leave their home without the permission from their husband or their father. From the very time they were girls they were basically told they didn’t have rights, they didn’t have a voice, their role was just to work in the home and to take care of kids. That’s obviously very important, dignified work, raising children and taking care of the home, but it’s not something that I believe women should be limited to.

Then in terms of the family life, women were married very young, oftentimes, against their will. When they were maybe 13 or 14 years old, their father would arrange a marriage for them, basically. Then women oftentimes had 10, 12, sometimes 15 kids, and so had very little control over their own lives, their own bodies, the decisions that impacted their lives. And the realm of public decision making was really dominated by men.

So, the Zapatista women, the older women, this is what their lives were. They oftentimes talk about, the first chapter of the book is called something like ‘stories of our mothers or grandmothers,’ because they oftentimes refer to these as the stories that our mothers, our grandmothers had told us, including the Zapatista women who were still around today. This is what they grew up with, just this really intense level of discrimination and marginalization.

TFSR: I had a thought, because I remember reading an interview with one person, I don’t remember what her name was, but she basically described the difference between societal men’s work and women’s work. She said that, “the men’s work is hard, yes, but people get to take breaks, and we never really get to take breaks. We have our, like you said, our 13 children, two babies on our hip, grinding flour for tortillas, and getting water and cleaning the house and doing all sorts of odd jobs, and also caring for many, many children, and not ever getting to take a break. People often were just ill a lot be from overwork and malnourishment and all that stuff.” So I found that really striking.

HK: Yeah, it’s kind of extraordinary. And, like you said, in terms of the women’s workday, they talk about the kind of double workday that I think women in this country still experience. The expectation that after a day’s work, you come home and women are still largely expected to be the ones doing primary childcare and taking care of the home. But it was to such an extreme degree, like you said, women were basically working nonstop from the moment that they woke up to the moment that they went to bed. Oftentimes would go out to the field and work side by side with the men. So that was, “men’s work” was working in the fields. But then once men were done with that day of work, they would kind of come home and rest, whereas the women would come home and then continue to do all the other work that they were doing, the domestic work and everything else that you were describing.

TFSR: So we’re talking about a lot of like, positive aspects of the EZLN. And there are many, many, many of them. But since it’s an organization that’s run by people, and people are flawed, and all of this stuff, I wanted to bring up a quote that I was struck by on page 95, which goes, “women’s right to own or inherit land has not been staunchly defended by Zapatista authorities in the ways that their equal right to political participation has.” Will you speak about the cultural and social aspects of this dispute?

HK: Yeah, so, when we were talking earlier about how important land is, it’s important to the indigenous communities of Chiapas economically, because it is the source of food and of income. Also as indigenous people, it’s really important to them, culturally, spiritually, this concept of Mother Earth. They don’t think of land as private property. So, the Zapatistas carried out a bunch of land takeovers in 1994 in the same context of the uprising, one of the other actions that they took was these land occupations, and then they redistributed these fincas that we were talking about before, to indigenous peasants, Zapatistas, throughout the state of Chiapas. That made a huge difference in people’s lives. When we were talking earlier, also about the ‘hunger month,’ when people didn’t have enough crops to literally feed themselves throughout the year, people living on this retaken land, this land was much more fertile, they had more access access to more land. That means just a huge difference in people’s lives in terms of their kind of economic livelihood, in terms of their food security, and again, in terms of their identities as indigenous people, it’s culturally, spiritually, just having a territorial base has been super important and to the Zapatista movement in terms of having an area of land where they are experimenting with all these other aspects of society. The society that they’re building. All of that has been very important.

Like I said that they don’t think of land as private property, but it is still divided. So, individuals will work on a particular parcel of land, so they don’t own that land, but that’s their kind of parcel of land to farm on. And the Zapatistas… I think it’s one of the few areas where, like you said in that quote is compared to women’s political participation, the EZLN as an organization has very staunchly defended women’s right to be involved in the movement at all levels, but with the access to land, it hasn’t been. It’s actually one of the few areas that stood out to me, where the EZLN, I believe, could have been more proactive, and hasn’t been. So, they’ve kind of reproduced some of the gendered assumptions that women don’t need access to land in the same way. When they have divided up, for example, the land that they took over, they divided up those individual parcels primarily to men. Then it was up to, it’s mostly individual families to decide, as they pass land on to the next generation, if they would pass it on kind of equally to the sons and daughters, or just to the son.

When we were talking earlier about women fighting for their rights within different social movements. They’ve continued to push and it is kind of an internal debate. I think there’s been a lot of movement around it. A shift has definitely taken place. But I think we haven’t seen as big as a shift there in terms of access to land for women are equally between women and men as we have seen some really pretty incredible shifts and other types of transformations that women have experienced.

I think it’s just a fascinating example that no movement is perfect, none of us as individuals are perfect, and our social movements aren’t perfect either. For me personally, it’s one of the few areas that I think the EZLN could have taken a more proactive stand in terms of the women’s agrarian rights.

TFSR: Yeah, I mean, these kinds of social societal changes happen so slowly and revolutionizing the way that we overthrow misogyny in ourselves and in our communities, I think will be a thing that will last the entirety of humans lasting. However long that may be.

On the on the note of some of the more positive social changes that the EZLN brought about, one of the more striking changes of the organization was a women’s revolutionary law, which was shared publicly after 1994. Will you speak about this law and about its role in Zapatista history.

HK: The women’s revolutionary law was written and passed by the EZLN in 1993 leading up to the Uprising. Then they shared it publicly, like you said, after the Uprising in 1994. It was a very important document, and I’ll talk in a second about some of what it contains. But I think it was very important, both in terms of all the work that went into it, and then all the work that has happened since then to implement it. So there’s this one point in time when it was passed, but also represents, like you were saying a second ago, that change takes time.

Iin the end of the late 80’s and early 90’s, like when we were talking earlier about the clandestine organizing that the EZLN was doing in the communities. One very important aspect of that was, and in particular, oftentimes, it was women insurgents who were talking to women in the different villages, and really sort of instigating that same sense of asking about injustice that we were talking about earlier, women were doing that specifically around women’s rights and around gender discrimination and asking women, “do you think life really has to be like this? How else could life look like?” And so all these women’s assemblies and talks and conversations went into creating the women’s revolutionary law. So, there were the political leaders as well as the military leaders, early women leaders in that time, really carried out the series of conversations. That was what became the women’s revolutionary law. So they drew up all of those proposals into this document that was passed by the political leadership, the comandantes, in 1993. It became a framing document regarding what women’s rights in Zapatista territory are.

So, in terms of what it actually says, it talks about women’s right to participate in the movement at all levels. That gets at their political participation, their leadership in their communities, their ability to be military leaders in the Zapatista rebel army. But it also talks about a very broad range of areas of life. And so it talks about women’s right to health care and education. It talks about women’s right to live free of violence. It talks about about women’s right to decide who to marry and how many children to have. So, it really addresses across both public and private spheres, family life, community life, political life. And in some ways, those rights are very basic, but putting each of them into practice is hugely transformative.

Then once the law was passed, the work that then came to implement it was work of consciousness raising, work of education, work of changing those family norms. I think if you look at each one of the points in the revolutionary women’s law, there has been huge transformation that’s taken place. I think it’s so important that you asked earlier about what were women’s lives like before the Zapatista movement, because that helps give us an understanding of just how extraordinary those transformations were. From that situation that the women describe themselves, their mothers, their grandmothers living in, to what Zapatista women have achieved in really an incredibly short period of time.

On the one hand, I totally agree with what you said a second ago about patriarchy, that it’s something that it takes a huge amount of time to uproot. I can’t really fault the Zapatistas for not having ended patriarchy in the 20 years that they’ve been at it, because I don’t think anywhere in the world, I don’t think there’s been anywhere that patriarchy has been completely uprooted.

TFSR: That’d be such a tall order.

HK: And if there is somewhere out there, and your listeners know of that place, please let me know,

TFSR: You’ll be the first to know, definitely,

HK: That’d be great. Maybe one of you listeners will call and let us know. “This is where patriarchy has been uprooted.”

But there was a huge amount of transformation that took place in this very short time period, in types of changes that I think in many contexts take sort of generations to unfold. The level of women’s political participation, the level of their leadership in the movement, the changes that have taken place in the home, I think those points of the revolutionary law have really, to a large degree been implemented by women choosing if they want to marry at all, and if they do, who they settle down with, how many children they have.

So, there’s a lot of work to be done. But there’s also just a tremendous amount that’s been accomplished. And that I think, is also really at the heart of why I wanted to publish this book, and why I wanted to create that vehicle for women to tell their own stories, because not only are those transformations so incredible, but I think there’s so many lessons to be learned. It is a very different context. What it can look like, what it can mean to accomplish those types of transformations in our own lives,

TFSR: Obviously, the EZLN has had a lot of international effects on people. Will you speak to some of the impacts that this movement has had on radical and anarchist societies and other countries, especially concerning the involvement of women? And to what extent do you see it still having an effect?

HK: Definitely. I do really believe that ever since 1994, the Zapatista movement has been one of the most impactful social movements around the world that has just had a tremendous ripple effect in terms of influencing and inspiring people around the world. And I think there’s some really concrete examples of that and at the same time, I think it’s really hard to measure, but just kind of undeniably out there.

So, one of those really concrete examples is the anti-globalization movement of the late 1990s. So if folks remember or have heard of the protests in Seattle against the World Trade Organization, or some of the other mobilizations that were taking place around the world. That really was something, the Zapatistas helped plant the seeds of that movement in some of those gatherings that I was talking about earlier that the Zapatistas have acted kind of as conveners of those conversations.

So they invited people to their territory, and people came throughout Mexico, but really from all over the world. And they really put this call out for anyone who’s been negatively impacted by global capitalism. So whether that’s because you are a student, or a worker, or a housewife, or transgender person, or whatever the case may be. When I was talking earlier about their demands being very universal, but I think it’s also been that type of call to anyone who has been exploited, oppressed, who’s faced injustice, and so many different people from so many different walks of life respond that call. So in the late 90’s, the focus of that was really in the context of neoliberalism and thinking about how can we address that. So the anti-globalization movement of the late 90’s. It wasn’t the only thing, but it was one of the things that really helped plant those seeds.

So, that’s, I think, you know, one concrete example. But besides that, there’s so many different collectives, organizations, groups around the world that have been influenced by the Zapatistas. It’s hard to name or measure that impact. But I do feel like it’s intangible, but undeniable. I think young people today continue to be inspired by the Zapatistas. They’re not in the spotlight in the same way they were kind of 10, 15, 20 years ago. But I continue to hear constantly about different examples of people who are really influenced by the Zapatistas, inspired by them, and then concretely influenced by them.

And in terms of women, I think it has been a really key example of not only having a movement that has strong women leadership, but a movement that’s also been able to evolve. When we were talking earlier about the roots of Zapatismo and I was saying that one of the things that makes the Zapatistas somewhat unique, I think, is their ability to draw from different political traditions and kind of be fluid and adapt. Their approach to gender is an example of that. So even though on the one hand, they were always committed to women’s participation, but there has also been a real evolution of their gender analysis. They would not use the word ‘feminist,’ it’s not the term they would use, but I think they have developed a much more nuanced analysis of gender and really taken on this question of, “What does it look like to uproot patriarchy?” So, yes, it will take time. But there’s been kind of a whole new series of strategies to address patriarchy to really uproot it. I think that that is so inspiring and is something that many of us in different social movements around the world can still really look to as a model that there’s a lot that we’ve won, but there’s a lot more to do.

I think the Zapatistas, and for me, personally, the Zapatista women in particular, but one of the aspects of the Zapatista movement that I think that really resonates is this combination of, on the one hand, being kind of humble enough to know that they don’t have all the answers. So, they have this philosophy of ‘making the road by walking’ and constructing the world of justice and dignity that they want to live in building that step by step, stone by stone. So, I think that humility is really important to know that we don’t have all the answers, nobody has all the answers. But at the same time, having kind of the the chutzpah, having the courage to say, “that’s not going to stop us” from dreaming big and from taking on global capitalism, or from declaring war on the Mexican government. And for women, it’s not going to stop them from you know, asking, “How do we address patriarchy? And how do we take all this stuff on?”

So I think that combination, that humility combined with the courage to dream big, and act on those dreams, is the one kind of thing that I would like to leave your listeners with. I think that message is true in general, but for me, as a woman, I would say, in particular, for women, women engaged in other struggles where it’s all connected, right? Women’s rights are connected to economic justice and social justice and racial justice. And as we fight for all those things in this interconnected way, that’s kind of the message that if there was one thing I would choose that I would like to share what I took away from those years that I spent in Chiapas, and what I kind of hoped to convey in the book, that would be it.

TFSR: Hilary Klein, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us about your book Compañeras: Zapatista Women’s Stories, which is available from Seven Stories Press and I highly, highly recommend it. It’s a really, really good read and I learned a lot from it. Thank you so much for talking with me today.

HK: Oh yeah, it was such a pleasure chatting with you.

Dixie Be Damned: a regional history of the South East through an Insurrectional Anarchist lense

http://www.akpress.org/dixie-be-damned.html
Download This Episode

This week, we’re excited to present a conversation with Saralee Stafford and Neal Shirley, editors and authors of a new book out from AK Press entitled “Dixie Be Damned: 300 years of Insurrection in the American South”. The book is a study of Maroon, Indigenous, White, Black, worker, farmer, slave, indentured, women and men wrestling against institutions of power for autonomy and self-determination. All of this in a region stereotyped to be backwards, slow, lazy, victimized and brutal. The editors do a smash-bang job of re-framing narratives of revolt by drawing on complex and erased examples of cross-subjectivity struggles and what they can teach us today about current uprisings in which we participate.

Throughout the hour we explore some of the examples that became chapters in the book, critiques of narrative histories and academia and what new ways forward might be towards an anarchist historiography. Keep an ear out for Saralee and Neal’s book tour, coming to a bookspace near you.

Playlist

Continue reading Dixie Be Damned: a regional history of the South East through an Insurrectional Anarchist lense

Operation Fenix: Repression in Czech Republic

http://antifenix.noblogs.org/
Download This Episode

This week’s episode theme: Repression!

Not really, but all of the content is related to that topic: Operation Fenix in Czech Republic; announcements on the 30th anniversary remembrances of the bombing of the MOVE house in Philly; updates on Mumia’s health status; Dave Strano out on bail, injured by police in Denver; support for Baltimore arrestees; the silencing of Sean Swain.

I forgot to say Happy May Day to y’all out there. Happy May Day, celebration of the corruption of the American Legal System as encapsulated in the indictment of the Haymarket 8, anarchist labor leaders and rebels accused of responsibility for throwing a bomb at cops during a rally in Chicago in 1886. Funny thing is, many of those 8 weren’t present and those who were were busy giving speaches when the bomb was thrown by an unknown figure. Of the 8, 4 were executed after a show trial, 1 committed suicide in prison to defy the authorities, and the 3 were later exonherated. Since all of their names have been cleared.

It’s also notably a European pagan holiday celebrating fertility, or new beginnings as spring rolls into full steam.

Since this event it’s been celebrated worldwide by marches and parades, by uprisings and riots, by picnics and gatherings. Tip of the hat to the folks of Seattle, Montreal, Milan, Istanbul, Oakland, Seoul, Moscow, Barcelona and sooo many other places where folks rose up in revolt. A great segment talking about this year’s May Day can be found at http://www.submedia.tv/stimulator/2015/05/09/may-day-gray-day/

OpFenixThe main content of the episode is a conversation with Lucy and Michael, two Czech anarchists speaking about the raids, arrests and charges of terrorism in the Czech Republic known as Operation Fenix/Phoenix. From the support site:

With ‘Operation Fenix’ came the biggest wave of police repressions against the anarchist and radical left movement in the recent czech history.

Taking people early in the morning hours, accusations of preparation of terrorist acts and confiscation of a server, which held several activists’ sites, all came with ‘Operation Fenix’ which started on Tuesday, 28th of April. Anti-extremist police is actively trying to frighten the left scene and collecting information in a fishing expedition.

Through the hour, Lucy and Michael talk about the far right in Czech Republic, the far left and anarchists, squatting in Prague, sabotage & animal liberation movements attached the Network of Revolutionary Cells in that country and also about the upcoming Prague Anarchist Bookfaire.

Other notes:

Sean Swain can’t do his youaretheresistance segment this week. He’s been silenced by his jailers at SOCF Lucasville in Ohio, cut off from email, phone calls, video visits and apparently mail. Rather than read his posts and letters that are available at seanswain.org, I’ll give a synopsis.

Basically the situation is this: Sean (and many other on his cellblock) witnessed a guard pepper spray 2 prisoners in neighboring cells for nothing. On April 20th, after a series of escalations by guards, prisoners were pepper sprayed, threatened with beatings, taken to the hole and Sean witnessed the and wrote about the event. Because of the unfairness of the way that the guards and courts have dealt with the 9, Black prisoners taken to the hole on the claims of organizing, and in particular the treatment of Rob Mahone (Sean’s neighbor), Sean decided to allow his record of the events to be posted at seanswain.org

May 13th, this Wednesday is the 30th anniversary of the Philly PD’s bombing of an already persecuted but defiant MOVE organization in that city. MOVE is a group focused on a worship of life and with a critique of racism, cruelty to animals, civilization and capitalism. On MAY 13th, 1985, the Philly pigs, ostensibly in an attempt to end a standoff with members of the MOVE organization where they’d barricaded themselves in a house, took a C4 bomb from the National Guard armory and dropped it by a helicoptor onto a house, killing 11 people, 5 of them children and levelling a city block. 7 move prisoners remain imprisoned on BS charges. You can find out more about the case at onamove.com including info on events in Philly, Oakland, West Hollywood & Minneapolis. http://onamove.org;

In a related note, the life of longterm prisoner, journalist, MOVE supporter and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal is still in danger and there’s a request for immediate pressing of his jailers in Pennsylvania to give him the medical attention that he needs. Mumia recently fell ill, going into Diabetic shock and suffering from untreated skin legions while incarcerated at SCI Manci. Though officials had conducted 3 blood tests on him in prior time no one informed him he’d developed Diabetes. He’s been denied medical treatment at various stages, an adequite diet and also access to his family, lawyers and supporters.
You can call the following officials to express concern:
John Wetzel – Secretary, PA Department of Corrections – (717) 728-4109
Thomas Wolf – Governor of Pennsylvania – (717) 787 2500
and more info on the case can be found at http://freemumia.com ;

There’s a continued request for solidarity for folks arrested in Baltimore in the wake of rioting that resulted from the murder of a 25 year old Black man named Freddie Grey at the hands of the police and their subsequent denial of guilt despite his arrest being videotaped. Legal and bail funds for the rebels can be donated at http://www.crowdrise.com/legalbailsupportforbaltimore ;

There’s a request for economic aid and support for community organizer Dave Strano after his beating and arrest at a Baltimore solidarity action that was attacked in Denver, CO earlier this month. He was bonded out on the 5th of May for $5,000. For more info and to help him out, check out https://denverabc.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/denver-community-organizer-arrested-call-out-for-jail-solidarity/

Playlist

Jesse Cohn on anarchist art, lit + resistance culture (1848-2011)

9781849352017
Download This Episode

This week, we speak with Jesse Cohn, author of the recent book, Underground Passages: Anarchist Resistance Culture 1848-2011, published by AK Press. In the book, Jesse explores trajectories in literature, cartoons, comics, music, poetry, drama produced at times by and or for or just conspicuously consumed by anarchists in europe, north and south america and asia during that time period. We talk about what Mr Cohn sees us as seeking to communicate, how we do that, and who we’re speaking to and how those questions change over time. More info on the book can be found at akpress.org

Jesse also puts out an invitation to listeners to share their stories of growing up in an anarchist household (what some might term “Black Diaper Babies”) or as the child of anarchists. The hope is to create a work that’d speak about what multi-generationality looks like or could look like. You can reach him at jcohn(aaat)pnc(d0t)edu with questions or stories.

As a quick update to last week’s episode about the hunger strike at OSP Youngstown by 6 prisoners: Hasan announced on April 15th, 2015 that he and 4 other prisoners stopped their hunger strike. Sedrick Tucker was continuing his hunger strike as of Friday, April 17th, 2015 due to private medical malpractice issues which he did not feel were being addressed by the demands that were met by the prison administrators. The support website, lucasvilleamnesty.org, stated in a recent post that the strike was a mixed victory, with some demands won and others not with the Warden conceding as little as possible. Hasan suggests that concerned people should contact that Ohio Medical Board and ask them to look into Sedrick Tucker’s treatment at the hands of Dr. James Kline. Hasan also suggests contacting ODRC Medical Service Administrator and ask to send another doctor to review Mr Tucker’s situation. It should be noted that Sean Swain also had issues with Dr. Kline during his last hunger strike.
Have a pencil read to write this down if you want to contact ODRC’s Medical Admin.

Stuart Hudson
Medical Service Administrator
770 W Broad St
Columbus OH 43222

To reach out to Sedrick Tucker, here’s an address:
Sedrick Tucker #117-137
OSP
878 Coitsville Hubbard Rd
Youngstown, OH 44505

Writing to Sedrick or in concern for him has real effects in how the guards and doctors will treat him.

Playlist

A chat with Eric McDavid on prison, post-incarceration, hope, ice cream and more

ericmcd
Download This Episode

A chat with Eric McDavid on prison, post-incarceration, hope, ice cream and more

This week we’re speaking with Eric McDavid, a recently released eco-anarchist and vegan. Eric and his two co-defendants (Lauren Weiner and Zachary Jenson) were entrapped by an FBI agent provocateur who went by the name of “Anna” and arrested for allegedly planning to blow up cell-phone towers, small dams & a lab researeching genetically modifying trees. Eric was arrested in January of 2006 during an FBI raid on the cabin that “Anna” was providing for the four.

During the court case, the government prosecutors were able to turn Zachary and Lauren against their slightly older co-defendant, Eric, with threats of spending decades of their life behind bars. So, Zachary and Lauren posed Eric as their “leader” and threw him under the bus. As a result, Eric was given a 20 year sentence for what was effectively the charge of being guilty of Thought Crime.

After years of the appeal process, Eric’s support team finally recieved documents within a FOIA that pointed to evidence they should have had during trial; evidence that could have led to a not guilty verdict at trial. Finally on January 8th 2015, Eric was released into the arms of supporters, family and loved ones in Sacramento, CA.
More on his case can be found at http://supporteric.org
We spend the hour chatting about his incarceration, experiences of support as one of the two names central to the June 11th Day of Solidarity with longterm Anarchist Prisoners alongside Marius Mason, decarceration, hope, ice cream and more.

More about this year’s June 11th at http://june11.org, including their recent call-up

A quick note. Brent Betterly of the NATO3 is slated for release from prison on April 16th of 2015, just 3 days before his birthday on the 19th. You can send him a birthday present to support his post-release life while he gets on his feet by visiting youcaring.com and searching his name.

More about the NATO3 entrapment case can be found at http://freethenato3.wordpress.com.

Playlist

Read more: A chat with Eric McDavid on prison, post-incarceration, hope, ice cream and more

Transcription

TFSR: I’m pleased to speak with Eric McDavid, a formerly incarcerated green anarchist and vegan. Eric and his two co-defendants, Lauren Weiner and Zachary Jensen, were entrapped by an FBI agent provocateur who went by the name of Anna, and arrested for allegedly planning to blow up cell phone towers, small dams, and a laboratory searching genetically modified trees. Eric was arrested in January of 2006 during an FBI raid on the cabin that Anna was providing for the four. During the court case, the government prosecutors were able to turn Zachary and Lauren against their slightly older co-defendant, Eric, with threats of spending decades of their lives behind bars. So Zachary and Lauren posed Eric as their ‘leader’, and threw him under the bus. As a result, Eric was given a 20-year sentence for what was effectively the charge of being guilty of a thought crime. After years of the appeal process, Eric’s support team finally received documents from a Freedom of Information Act request (or FOIA request) that pointed to evidence they should have had during the trial. Evidence that could have led to a not-guilty verdict at the trial. Finally, on January 8th, 2015 Eric was released into the arms of supporters, family, and loved ones in Sacramento, California. Thanks a lot for chatting, Eric.

Eric McDavid: It’s my pleasure to be here.

TFSR: You’ve been described as a green anarchist. Do you accept that moniker? And what does it mean to you?

Eric McDavid: I accept it just because I define it pretty much as the perception of the environment being the largest common denominator of whatever social critique I adhere to and utilize. So, it’s basically the environment as the primary concern and orientation towards social critique.

TFSR: So sort of an eco-anarchist perspective, or do you have a critique of agriculture or industrial civilization or technology?

Eric McDavid: My understanding of anarchy comes with a full critique of culture and society, and pretty much Western culture in total, which encompasses all the different nodes and aspects within it. Basically, a lot of this stuff right after folks moved towards domestication of themselves and everything around them.

TFSR: How did you and your supporters finally get you out, and what were the conditions of your release?

Eric McDavid: How I finally got out was through the habeas [corpus] appeal. Habeas [corpus] is kind of the last-ditch appeal that you can use in the federal courts after your direct appeal to the Circuit [Court] and then to the Supreme Court. Both of those have been denied in my case, and we were on the habeas appeal when my support team, Sacramento’s Prison Support, had acquired these documents from a FOIA request, which hadn’t existed prior, allegedly.

And the funny thing is that these are just documents that point to other documents that existed at the time of trial. They were able to show that in the habeas [corpus] appeal to the magistrate judge, who was a little bent out of shape about it. I suppose more so because at about the same time I went to trial, he used to work for the US Attorney’s Office. And so he was going to be shoving a whole lot of negative energy into this case from their perspective.

We ended up getting a call, I want to say the beginning of November, end of October. Mark Vermillion, who is one of my legal team along with Ben Rosenfield, got a call from the US Attorney’s Office, and they were like: ‘Yeah, what do you want to do? Do you want to do anything? Because you’re supposed to have those things that you’re pointing out in this appeal.’ And Mark was just: ‘No, what do you want to do?’ So they came back at them with: ‘How about we just do a cut and dry, drop everything, head out the door type deal.’ And then after a hearing on the 16th of December, that’s where it was all leading towards.

TFSR: Are there any stipulations that you can’t file lawsuits against the prosecutors for withholding evidence, or are you on any sort of house arrest or anything like that?

Eric McDavid: Yeah, they always include “you can’t sue us for anything that we might have done wrong” type of stuff. And of course, they say you’re always agreeing to this, not under any type of coercion or anything like that.

TFSR: Sure, because prison doesn’t count as coercion or anything? [sarcasm]

Eric McDavid: No, totally, yeah, definitely. So, I’ve just got pretty basic unsupervised release conditions. I just have to stay within the Eastern District of California. If I want to go out, I gotta give notice to my Parole Officer (PO). You got the basic: at least three piss tests throughout the whole supervised release. I got 24 months of the supervised release, but they say if I go squeaky clean, then they’ll probably drop it after 12. Let’s see, you got random checks by the PO of your residence. Oh, I got the computer monitoring on my laptop for school, where you have to pay for that. I have to pay for that.

TFSR: What?

Eric McDavid: Yeah, yeah.

TFSR: Wow, just jabbing in the needles.

Eric McDavid: You know, they try.

TFSR: Your release by the state was basically saying: “We conducted ourselves in a poor manner during the case and withheld evidence.” Not: “This whole thing was BS, and you shouldn’t have been in there in the first place”, right?

Eric McDavid: Yeah, totally. They couldn’t even go as far as that first part that you stated, because if they had said that they would have done something wrong during the case, if they had stated that in front of the court, the court would have had to drop the charges due to the Brady infractions. Basically, the whole twist of it was around the Brady violations, where they’ve got a precedent that says everything that the US Attorney’s Office, the government has they have to turn over to the defense to be able to use as evidence, either for or against the case.

From transcript that I’m pretty sure is on the website of that January 8th hearing, it’s really self-evident how they try to jump around that and it kind of added to the whole drama of it all. But we had no idea until that last instance, what was going to happen. It was quite the roller coaster ride of just still keeping that awareness around [the fact that] I’m still gonna be [in prison] for another eight and a half years. I mean that part was always there. And you know, what do you do with that? You just keep moving from day to day, and try and keep your body healthy, keep your mind sharp and keep your mind healthy, and keep soaking in all the support that kept on coming in nonstop throughout the whole process. But still being open to the possibility and probability of walking out the door.

I actually had a friend in [FCI] Victorville who would help keep that aspect alive in me, even though there were just the showboating probabilities that came from the appeals process they had to go through. I knew they were gonna get denied, but he helped me. Every few weeks he’d hit me up. He’d be like: “Hey, if you had to leave tomorrow, would you have everything all lined up? Are you ready to go? Okay, now the situation changes. Here’s a different situation. You’re getting out, how would you have to change your mindset and what your process would be to get out, and what would you have to handle on the outside? And how would you do that?” That person really, really helped build a good foundation to help keep my brain sharp, my mind sharp and my heart open to other options and different probabilities.

TFSR: Sounds like a really good friend.

Eric McDavid: Definitely.

TFSR: For people in the audience who haven’t experienced prison or jail or what have you, can you talk a little bit about what was your experience of relationships with other prisoners while on the inside? Did you have to deal with gangs and sectarianism and such a lot?

Eric McDavid: Yeah, definitely. I mean, for me, it was part and parcel throughout the whole run. And the thing is that in the federal prison system, it’s not nearly as intense and heavy as it is in the state systems. So those folks that are going through that part of the prison industrial complex, they’ve got to deal with a lot heavier stuff than I do or I did. There was definitely dealing with gangs and everything. Starting at Victorville, which was a medium-security prison. If you mess up at some other medium or a low [security prison] really bad, you get in a real big fight, they send people to Victorville for extra punishment.

TFSR: Just because it was so much harder to keep your head down at Victorville? Or just get by, sort of like: ”Well, you screwed up. Let’s set you up to fail” type of thing? Or was it that the guards were more harsh? Or what?

Eric McDavid: The whole system at Victorville was a little bit more harsh than other medium yards. That’s what it was. It was a disciplinary yard. It’s out in the middle of the desert, on top of everything, and it was a part of a complex. So there are two medium yards, the penitentiary, which is one of the highest security [prisons] in the system. And then there was a camp for female folks.

The intensity at Victorville was a little bit higher than the usual medium yard. For one, because they had a bunch of folks coming down from the pen that was right next door, so they had a high population of folks that had been dealing with that intensity for 5-10 years on the yard. And then just a lot of folks that are there for what they call disciplinary action. So there are less resources, he cops are more assholes, the administration is worse. There’s just not that much to do there for folks so far as resources or whatnot. And so with all of that as a foundation, it creates a lot of stressful environment for everybody within.

I think a couple of weeks after I got there, there was a lockdown for a week after two groups, two gangs got into it. And then six months after I got there, there was a 45-minute riot in the yard, after which we were locked down for a month and a half to two months. So it was a pretty active yard, and there was definitely that type of politics going on with gangs.

For me personally, the way that I danced with it all, I found that so long as I did my program, so long as I kept my own program, my own routine, and just did the same thing pretty much every day, that creates a structure for other people to go off of. So as far as they can see and know what you’re doing throughout the day, and they know that you’re not going to mess with their routine and their program, that creates a bit of security for them, because they get so dependent upon those types of patterns. Just to make the days roll into weeks, into months, into years, because that’s what they have left to do.

That type of relationship to your own routine and pattern is really highly respected because they know that you’re not just some random cannon that might go off in their face and fuck up their program, and then they have to go to the shoe, or they might have to stab you because you’re fucking up in their situation and bringing heat onto them, or any number of things. And so I saw how just having my daily routine and keeping to myself, and even hooking up with some other folks on similar routines, no matter who or what kind of groups there were, they just respected me being independent and doing stuff on my own.

TFSR: It seems like a lot of what you’re talking about is obviously very stressful. I would call prisons a very stressful situation, from what I understand. Some prison reformists and prison abolitionists have pointed to the high percentages of mental health issues of people going in and also exacerbation of mental health issues of people that are inside because of the conditions that are there and the lack of treatment. Is that something that you can comment on, from what you’ve experienced inside?

Eric McDavid: Yeah, that is prolific throughout my entire experience. Especially at the last place I was at, which was a medical yard, it was definitely prolific, and there’s no two ways about it there. They had a whole bunch of folks that were so traumatized by the experience of prison on top of their prior traumas experienced throughout life that there was no question that the added stressors and structure of prison did nothing but further debilitate [them]. I mean, regardless of whatever type of help they said that they were trying to do via groups or therapy, most of the time it was just over medication and the therapist trying to just get people through their program so that they could get recognition for fulfilling program requirements and keep numbers high in their classes to keep on getting paid for their job that they weren’t doing. Basically, classic bureaucracy.

TFSR: Can you talk about what your experience of support coming from the outside has been and if and how it changed with the resurrection of June 11th as the Day of Solidarity with Long-term Anarchist Prisoners, including you and Marius Mason?

Eric McDavid: Yeah, the resurrection. Where does that come from? Did it go away for a while? Was I gone during that?

TFSR: I mean, I feel like after Jeffrey Lures was released, because [solidarity with him] was the original point of that [day], and then he said: ‘Okay, let’s reassign it to long-term eco and anarchist prisoners.’ And you and Marius were the top two names for that. So I guess maybe the re-emergence or rebirth, or Phoenix rising from the flames, I don’t know.

Eric McDavid: [laughs wholeheartedly] Okay.

TFSR: [in funny voice] Easter egg!

Eric McDavid: For real, for real, I don’t know if it’s just my memories faded up for so long, but it feels like every June 11th I’d get this huge batch of letters, and that would only trail off maybe come August, or September, would it start to dissipate. And pretty darn sure, when I’d gotten to prison, that was when I definitely remember that for certain. And I know you could talk to folks at SPS [Sacramento Prisoner Support] about this, and they’d have a better relationship to it all, because they had more of a hands-on so far as fundraising and direct interaction with other groups, especially around J11. I mean, every June 11th, I remember Jenny from SPS talking about how those funds that were generated on June 11th were what….. [Sorry, the dog is just whining at the door right now.]

TFSR: [Oh, I can hear that, poor dog]

Eric McDavid: [Sasha, come here, come, come.] So whenever June 11th came around, those funds that were generated and given at that time were pretty much what paid for her to be able to come and see me throughout the whole year. They weaned off about June, and then the next June 11th will come, and then those funds would fill right back up. So, yeah, the support that came from that was phenomenal and continuous from my experience of the whole bit.

TFSR: Good. Petey, Jenny and the other folks involved in Sacramento Prisoner Support, SPS, do a phenomenal job of organizing, from my experience at least. I guess maybe you don’t have any views or critiques of how prisoner support goes in the US, from your experience, because you’ve had a good crew working on your side.

Eric McDavid: Are you posing a question? [laughs]

TFSR: Yes, or maybe you do. You can’t see me winking at you.

Eric McDavid: [laughs harder] Darn it, the video link, is not working.

TFSR: Do you, in fact, have a critique?

Eric McDavid: [laughs some more] The most basic stuff is the most important so far as prisoner support goes, from what I experienced of it. If there are differences of opinion within the support group, they would always contact me directly and have a conversation about it. And then it’d be like: ‘Okay, so this is where we’re at with it. How do you feel about it? We see these two different things, or four different things, or eight different things. Can you respond about this right now? Or would you like to take time to think about it and then come back and hit me up?’ I mean, for real for real, it was all just the basis of healthy communication patterns being utilized within the group, including me as well. So as long as that stuff was happening throughout the whole experience, that’s how I felt like, especially with SPS. That was one of the main things that held everything together, and the most effective and efficient way of just making sure everything was covered, because we talked about everything in an open way. And so after you get that covered, then everything else just kind of falls into place. It’s like a Tetris game that you don’t have to turn the pieces on because you have the right foundation already set up.

TFSR: Prefigurative anarchist praxis. [in funny voice] What! Weeee! Cool, good to hear.

How do you feel about the term political prisoner?

Eric McDavid: There are a couple of things on that. I mean, for real for real, when you’ve got the long indictment with 15 uses of the word ‘anarchy’, or ‘anarchism’ in it, and it’s not a terribly long indictment, actually, so that word is used at least every other page, then you have to think that there’s a little bit of a political influence, happenstance, maybe something happening in the indictment. And so there’s that.

TFSR: I detect sarcasm.

Eric McDavid: [laughs] No, no, no. I said a very true statement. There’s nothing sarcastic whatsoever. And then there’s also the utilization of “how is that different from folks that are politically influenced from a second-hand aspect?”. Where they’re brought up in such economically deprived and neglected (or not neglected, because that actually means something else), so definitely economically consciously deprived areas and regions, where their option is to move outside of the legal system, which is politically in place as well… And so when those folks are put in prison, how is that not… how can that be differentiated from a political frame of reference as well?

I guess it just all depends on your definition of “political prisoner”, so far as what type of framing we’re trying to use to discuss. So how do I feel about the “political prisoner” term? I mean, I don’t have any problem with it. It feels valid from a basic sense. And then you can kind of go for “prisoner of war” too because it’s just internal [logic]; there’s that easy translation between the two. Yeah, it’s kind of there. I don’t really trip on it.

TFSR: While on the inside already, having been convicted, how did your beliefs and your desire to live in a certain way, for instance, like your political beliefs around veganism or your anarchism, how did those things affect the way that you were treated by your jailers and also by the folks around you?

Eric McDavid: By the folks around me. I mean, for most of the time, it was just like: ‘What do you eat? How do you eat? If you don’t eat meat, what do you eat?’ And it’s just like: “Well, I don’t know, I eat beans and legumes and rice and fruit and nuts and vegetables,” and [I would] go off with that whole array of things. And they just go: “Man, I don’t know how you do that.” Because, I mean, I’d have to eat the soy during chow [mealtime], and everybody’s just like: “Uuuggghhh, soy… yadda yadda yadda”. Actually, I helped out the cooks to make the stuff taste pretty good at the last spot I was at. But every time they came at me with: “Oh, what do you eat? How do you eat that? Uughh, that stuff’s nasty.” I was just kind of like: “Man, I didn’t come here for the food.”

TFSR: Good point

Eric McDavid: ‘I did not come to prison for the food. So, you know what? For real, for real. I have to look at it like this right now. I’m just feeding a machine, and I need these certain things, these certain aspects covered to keep my body going, what are you gonna do?

And then you also had folks with perspectives on anarchism, having no clue or idea of anything other than just “total random chaos” and stuff like that. And so [I was] trying to sit down with folks sometimes, and just being able to iterate some very basic concepts and ideas in ways that folks could receive it. And every time I did that, I mean, folks would just kind of go ahead: “Well, yeah, I can’t really argue with that.” There were people there that are interested in conversation, and that’s always there. And the cops, most of the time, you just go: “You know what? You got access to my file. Go and read my file. I’m not going to talk to you. I don’t need to talk to you. You don’t need to talk to me. I don’t care how bored you are. If you’re really bored, go and talk to the file.”

TFSR: I seem to recall a few times of you going on hunger strike because you were being denied vegan food. Was that just based on the facilities that you were in? I understand state facilities, for instance, where I think you may have been held initially. I may be totally wrong, and call me out on it, please. I’ve heard that folks that are in state prisons and especially county jails, usually have a lot of difficulty getting hold of vegan food and getting hold of supplements and let alone being able to pay for stuff through commissary if you have to buy it separately. But can you talk about the difficulties that you’ve faced on the inside and what came of those in terms of getting a hold of a more healthful vegan diet?

Eric McDavid: Yeah, the county was the worst, definitely. That was where I had to do those two hunger strikes. Once I got to federal prison, actually one of the first spots that I got to at Victorville, they had a tray of vegetables and peanut butter sitting there waiting for me, before I’d even gotten off the bus. That was nice that I didn’t have to deal with that once I got into the federal prison. But yeah, in counties they’re so focused on the money tunnel that they’ve got going that any deviation from this script is fought tooth and nail.

TFSR: Just another stop on the road towards dehumanization, I guess.

Eric McDavid: Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, you got dehumanization on so many levels in this culture, it’s amazing. It just manifests itself in the militarization of the police as well, and even with the way folks interact with the jailers. All of the folks that were in prison with me or in the county jail with me were always [shouting]: “Hey CO, hey CO”, calling them CO – correctional officer. I don’t know if this is universal across America, but in Sacramento County, the sheriff’s office runs the county jail. The deputies have to do two years of work in the county jail before they can go out on the street. And so that’s part of their process of ensuring the dehumanization of ‘the other’ from within the indoctrination of the people that become no longer people, but deputies.

And all the folks that are there in the cells, people that have been within the system for a while when interacting with cops [shout]: “Ay, CO, ay, CO, ay, CO!”. And so I was like: “You know what: Hey, deputy. You’re not a correctional officer, you’re a deputy. I’m gonna call you a deputy.” And some of them got pissed about it. Some of them got livid about me calling them a deputy. I mean, it was just something to knock them off of their center. Maybe it was just so that I wasn’t going to play into that dehumanization, just to get them out of that frame of reference of just being that screw. So if you’re constantly referred to as a screw and somebody calls you a nut, you’re going to react differently.

TFSR: Or both [laughs]. In relation to the increased dialog around the prison industrial complex in the mainstream, I have recently become aware that political support around prisoner issues has started engaging more actively and in the more mainstream with post-release support for the formerly incarcerated. Eric, in your experience, what sort of things should the audience members understand about the psychological effects of incarceration and post-incarceration? What sorts of things are we doing right, and what could we be doing better?

Eric McDavid: This is a really good question. So, for real, for real, right at the gate, the support that I’ve been getting is still breathtaking. I mean how it comes in, on a personal level and through different mediums, it seriously knocks me off my feet continuously. So for me personally, the types and the amount of support that I’ve been getting have just been phenomenal. Maybe after a while, I’ll be able to find a critique for it, but right now, it’s just so overwhelmingly beautiful that it’s hard to conceive of critiquing it. I don’t know. Maybe it’s just kind of like one of those things, when you’re in the box, it’s hard to see what’s on the outside of the box.

TFSR: Yeah, that makes sense.

Eric McDavid: Does that make sense? Maybe it’s just one of those things with that.

TFSR: You’re getting good support and you’re amazed about it. But what sort of things have you felt that you’ve needed support about? Especially those things that could be… not universalized, but you know, the same sort of things that people who are looking to support and folks who are getting out in general look for. For instance, Brent Betterly of the NATO 3 is scheduled for release coming up. (In any case, more information on that at freethenato3.wordpress.com.) Whether or not someone’s a political prisoner or in for political reasons, and getting support in that way, this is the most carceral state in the world. So many people go in or are in one stage [of imprisonment] or another, especially among marginalized and racialized communities and classes. What sort of things have you had to deal with that you think are kind of universal, that we should be thinking about with our community members, our comrades and our family members?

Eric McDavid: That’s a good way of putting that. The biggest thing is dealing with the bureaucracies right when you come out. Getting a driver’s license again, if you have to deal with getting a car, all the stuff that comes with that. Getting a job or getting back into school because for fed [federal] you have to either go to school full time, or you have to work full time, or do half and half. And, so, dealing with those types of bureaucracies and all that comes with it. Some people do not want to mess with that shit, and it’s really difficult for them. Especially with all the PTSD that comes with getting out and coming out of the shock of the different social realms, the transition between them.

So maybe checking in with people that just get out and say: “So what is it? Do you need any help with dealing with this bureaucracy or that bureaucracy, or getting food stamps, or getting into financial aid for school?” A lot of that stuff could be a great space to help folks out. Over the last nine years, I have just been dealing with bureaucracies so damn much that it’s like second nature for me now. So, I know how to deal with that in a healthy way for me, and it ends up being really efficient. Just really efficient, there’s nothing pleasurable about dealing with bureaucracies. That could be one of the huge stressors, a major stressor for folks just coming out.

The monetary stuff is always there too. Any type of buffer for folks just coming out is always monumental. I got that box of vegan sausages that I’ve only made a third of the way through. I got that a week and a half after I got out. Maybe it may be that long, it’s not the next week, so that’s okay. So now I don’t have to worry about purchasing protein for the next six months, and that is a huge load off in my mind. One less thing I have to worry about. And then folks sending me a letter that had two stamps in it, that’s just sweet. And now I have a stamp to write you back and say: ‘Thank you, and how are you doing, and what’s up, and what do you get going on?’ And I also have a stamp for someone else who sent me a letter, and that’s one less thing I have to worry about. A lot of this stuff may feel really small, but it ends up being monumental in the end. Even the incremental, small things that we support folks with.

TFSR: Are there any culture shocks that you care to share, good or bad, that you’ve had since your release? Not in terms of what you just referred to, like post-incarceration PTSD, but more like, for instance: have the vegan sausages gotten better?

Eric McDavid: [laughs] Yes, they’ve gotten better! The vegan sausages have become phenomenal. And there’s one thing that keeps hope in my heart for the human race. And I have a very contentious and very narrow definition of hope, by the way. There is still hope when humans can make vegan ice cream that tastes this good. What is impossible? Seriously. There’s nothing impossible after that.

TFSR: [laughs] Is it the nut-based ones?

Eric McDavid: It’s every single kind I’ve tried so far. They’re just phenomenal.

TFSR: Good. I mean, I’m glad, but I’ll bite since you said it’s contentious and such. Are there elements other than the vegan ice cream that you would like to talk about in terms of hope? What does hope mean to you? You can pass this if you want.

Eric McDavid: No, definitely. No, I love this one. And I have to give credit to it because the person that worded it the most beautiful way possible is the person that wrote the Doris magazines.

TFSR: Cindy Crabb, right?

Eric McDavid: Yes, thank you. And she talks about hope in this… oh-so-beautiful way! She words it so much better than I ever could. Saying that hope isn’t this thing for me where I place all my energy and just kind of allow that to do whatever it is I hope to do or to accomplish. It’s not anything near that. It’s more like the feeling of a crush, of having a crush on something. There’s this idea and there’s this outpouring that just comes from everything around me and within me all at the same time. Towards this idea and towards this beautiful thing that I’ve just so deeply fallen lustfully in love with, and just can almost touch it.

TFSR: And what happens without hope, do you think?

Eric McDavid: Without hope?

TFSR: When you lose hope?

Eric McDavid: Oh, yeah, no, don’t do that. You just don’t do that. That one’s not fun, because that’s a downward spiral that leads to a whole bunch of toxicity and trauma and self trauma especially.

TFSR: But I mean finding that there’s hope, and then just shifting the object of that hope from one to another seems kind of unhealthy, too. In terms of not allowing yourself to feel like a roller coaster and also be actively engaged in what the next taste sensation is, or whatever… You know what I mean?

Eric McDavid: Yeah, no, I hear that. I didn’t say that the crush was without heartbreak. Yeah, no, there’s definitely a balance there.

TFSR: But you’re just not cutting yourself off to it.

Eric McDavid: Exactly. There’s always the possibility of heartbreak, and that’s what always helps create that extra little dangerousness.

TFSR: It makes it worthwhile.

Eric McDavid: Definitely.

TFSR: Do you have any observations, just generally, on the anarchist scene upon release that are kind of a surprise? Where it’s at in North America or worldwide, or in your community? As far as what the discussions are, or levels of activity, or talking to people who are maybe going through the continued post-Occupy depression, or whatever?

Eric McDavid: [laughs frantically] Don’t put all your bags in one basket.

TFSR: I like that.

Eric McDavid: Don’t ever do that. Always leave an opening. Let go of that stuff. For real, for real. It’s done, in the past, and once we let go of something, we can open our hands once more, and find something else to play with. So why would you hold on to something that’s not there anymore, anyway? I know it’s sad, and we can grieve. But I mean, seriously: let it go, let it die, learn from it, and then we can put our hands on something else and something new and something now instead of what was in the past.

TFSR: I mean, I’m still burned from the anti-war movement, so…

Eric McDavid: You and me both [laughs]. That’s what opened my gates and so I’ve still got grief from that leftover, definitely. But it’s blossomed and developed into a new thing, and then it’s definitely not what it used to be for me any longer. But seeing stuff, for real, for real, I’ve been just galloping in a little bit and getting a little bit more and more into stuff, but not terribly fast. I’ve got school and everything. But I’ll tell you what, I’m going to the Anarchist Book Fair in San Francisco on the 25th. I’m sure that there will be more than something after that.

Oh, you know what, there was one little thing. There was one thing about drama within the milieu. And how it’s just [makes a funny voice]: ”Oh God, more drama about this, drama over here, about this.” And I kind of almost wanted to reframe the idea of drama. In so far as how I was hearing people talk about it and hearing the relationship to it. Especially, for real, for real, us humans are just full of drama. I mean there’s no way to escape it, there’s no way to get around it, and there’s no way to avoid it. We’re dramatic individuals and groups. I mean mostly because we have really dramatic ideas and really passionate ideas, and so that type of energy is bound to manifest within our relationships. And I just would really like to maybe put out there an idea, regardless of how much drama we create and inadvertently… that [we should be] trying to move with a consciousness about how we communicate to each other and ourselves, and how we relate to ourselves, with types of communication. I think for the drama part, which is never going to go away, I think we could actually just get better at being dramatic.

TFSR: Think of a community of dramaturges, you know. [makes exaggerated voice] Thespians everywhere! In the streets! Yeah.

Eric McDavid: Now, see, you can’t put a limitation on that type of potential.

TFSR: Okay, okay. [both laugh]

To that last question that I was going to ask: on a more personal note, on the tongues of many anarchists in the US since your case has begun, was the example of Anna. She’s been described in support literature as a college student, who, for a paper, infiltrated anarchist groups like Food Not Bombs and the black blocks during the FTAA protests in Miami in 2003. An FBI agent enrolled in the same community college course as her, heard about her activities and engaged her with the FBI, leading to her meeting you, Zachary, and Lauren after attending CrimethInc and other gatherings around the country and embedding herself into anarchist scenes. It’s assumed by many that she’s been placed into protective custody by the FBI and possibly furnished with a new identity. Do you have any observations you’d like to make about that or any words you’d like to broadcast to her or others who may take the same sort of path in their lives?

Eric McDavid: Not really, for real for real. I couldn’t see anybody who’d want to take that path really listening to your program, for real for real. So that part feels a little irrelevant. But words to her, definitely not. She gets to live her life however the devil she wants to, and so long as it’s away from me in as many ways as possible, there’s no problem on my end whatsoever.

TFSR: Was there anything that we didn’t talk about that you’d want to?

Eric McDavid: Good question.

TFSR: Snuck that one in.

Eric McDavid: One aspect of the use of entrapment within the legal system isn’t something that’s out of the norm or an oddity or just some random happenstance. Throughout my whole bid, there was nothing but that: “Damn you got just like I did! You got to hit just like I did!” Over and over and over again. “Oh, your sounds just like mine, but is a little bit different on this.” It’s prolific within the so-called legal system. My case is definitely not special in any type of way regarding that aspect. Entrapment is used prolifically throughout the whole system.

TFSR: Do you have any words for listeners, especially young folks coming up who may not have learned lessons that many of us have learned at least being around for a bunch of years? Folks are passionate and just how to be safe or how to be safer?

Eric McDavid: Yeah: read history. Now I know that that can be a hard thing to hear, but our history is really important for us to know on a very intimate level, because it’s not even our history, it’s our story. All of our different stories have a really profound, intimate impact on our lives that we live today. The greater understanding that I would have had back then of our stories, the more of a foundation I would have had to be able to look at what was going on around me at that time and to be able to orientate it and put it in a correct frame of reference. Instead of just being able to throw it off as: “Oh, yeah, it’s just that. That’s just that, that’s just whatever. I’m just tripping out.” If that makes sense.

TFSR: So since that question was posed the agency to younger people who are just coming up and learning stuff, or people who are new. What do you have to say to folks who have been around for a while in terms of fostering those relationships with younger folks and folks who are coming up, and who are asking them questions? What do we do? Do we point them to the history? Do we just sit down and have the long conversations and see what they want to know, and then do our best to say “Oh, yeah, I know a little bit about this. Here’s my thoughts.” How do we foster as… I know it’s gonna sound funny, and I’m not 40 yet.

Eric McDavid: [laughs hard] Were you going to use the word ‘elder’?

TFSR: Yes, I was! [both laugh frantically]

Eric McDavid: [with emphasis] Oh! I don’t know. I’m still debating on whether that’s an ageist term or not.

TFSR: Ageist as in negative to the people who are considered elders or agist to everyone else who’s not considered an elder?

Eric McDavid: [laughs some more] Yes.

TFSR: “Yes.” Good answer.

Eric McDavid: I like you, Bursts.

TFSR: I like you too, Eric.

Eric McDavid: Of course, there’s no rote way to do this, and it’s all going to be totally organic and created out of each individual situation. But maybe a basic orientation to the situations that may arise could be of course being aware of healthy communication and styles of communication. And not being in the mindset that someone who may appear younger or who wants to talk about this type of stuff is fragile in any way. So that you’re not going to scare them off if you’re talking about something heavy, and they’re not going to be ruined after you have this type of conversation with them.

TFSR: I’ve made the mistake of having conversations with folks… There was a conspiracy trial that happened in this town after May Day in 2010. And you know, parts of this community have been sort of shattered, and folks who have been around for a while, especially the folks that did support, or lived with the co-defendants of the actual 11, [were] just super paranoid about everything. “If we hear anything, we just shut it down. Don’t even talk about that. What are you doing? Are you insane? Are you a cop? Dadidadada.” Which is not helpful and not realistic either. It gives so much power or assumption of power to the state and omnipotence and stuff like that. But I guess just having real conversations and just listening to where people are at, I guess?

Eric McDavid: Yeah, and being honest with where you’re at, too, with everything. If you don’t feel comfortable talking about something with someone, then definitely don’t do that, but don’t shit on them in the process, because you’re not comfortable. Does that make sense?

TFSR: Yeah, totally.

Eric McDavid: Yeah. And I mean the more we become aware and familiar with all these COINTELPRO practices that have continued to this day and will continue for a while, the more we familiarize ourselves with it and how they’re used, the more comfortable we get with how to deal with it. And so, like you said, by not dealing with it and by totally shutting down, we definitely provide the state with exactly what they are trying to do and accomplish. There has to be some medium and some comfort zone within the conveyance of trying to articulate these types of ideas in healthy ways.

TFSR: Just to jump back a little bit to when I was talking about post-release: Brent Betterly is going to be released on April 16th, and his birthday is on the 19th. So…

Eric McDavid: Holy mackerel!

TFSR: I know, it’s great.

Eric McDavid: That’s awesome.

TFSR: Thank you so much for having a chat, Eric.

5e3 prisoners are released, Updates on Krow of Penokee Defenders, Hunger Strikes at OSP Youngstown and music

https://penokeedefenders.wordpress.com/
Download This Episode

This week’s show, we rebroadcast an interview from 2013 with Krow, aka Katie Kloth, followed by updates on the 2-week old hunger strike at OSP Youngstown, the release of the 5e3 prisoners in Mexico & recent metal, deathrock and punk from around the world.

Krow is an anarchist, environmental and indigenous rights activist. At the time of the original interview, Krow had been facing charges stemming from a protest where eco-activists found workers from Global Taconite, a mineral mining company attempting to extract iron ore from the hills of Iron County, Wisconsin, secretly test-drilling. Krow was charged with throwing a worker’s camera away and minor assault which was caught on a video. A link to the video will be included in this episode’s blog post.

Krow was sentenced to 9 months in jail this January, 2015. In addition, according to the Ashland Daily Press, Krow will have five years of probation with the felony charge and two years with the misdemeanor including a work release where they’ll be pressed to work a full-time job as a way of normalizing them and their activities. Otherwise known as domestication. Krow is now also facing charges from District Attorney Martin Lipske of bail jumping for allegedly participating in an anniversary protest in a “forbidden zone” in the Penokkee range controlled by Global Taconite along with 45 other people. Lipske appears to have it out for Krow, who had initially filed charges could have resulted in a 15 year sentence for Krow.

After the conversation with Krow, I’ll read their post-sentencing statement. For more on the case, check out http://penokeedefenders.wordpress.com & http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2015/01/22/wisconsin-eco-activist-krow-sentenced-to-9-months-for-2013-mining-disruption/

You can write to Krow at:
Katie Kloth
Iron County Jail
300 Taconite Street
Hurley, WI 54534

Also this hour we announce the recent news of the release of Amelie, Carlos & Fallon from prison in Mexico on March 13th. They were charged with a molotov attack January 5th of 2014 on a Nissan dealership and the neighboring government offices of the Mexican Department of Transportation and Communication and had faced serious charges relating to terrorism because people were in the government office at the time. The 3 collectively were known as the 5e3. Amelie and Fallon, both Quebecoise, were deported back to Canada. We’re happy that they’ve been able to rejoin their friends and loved ones and that Carlos Lopez Martin with his child.
To hear some words from Amelie & Fallon while they were imprisoned in Mexico, check out our website.
Translations of their letters can be found here: http://waronsociety.noblogs.org/?tag=5e3

Also of note in prison-related things:

From LucasvilleAmnesty.org

On Monday March 16th, over 30 supermax prisoners at Ohio State Penitentiary went on hunger strike. Warden Jay Forshey and OSP staff are refusing to meet their demands or negotiate with them. Some of the hunger strikers have not even been met and consulted with regarding their demands. Eleven prisoners remain on hunger strike and are committed to staying through to the end, if necessary.

Playlist

4 Year Anniversary Show

cimg6644
Download This Episode

This week’s show features 4 conversations. For the fourth anniversary of the Final Straw Radio going on the air, we took it upon ourselves to have conversations with other people doing similar and different anarchist audio projects.

The first non-me voice y’all will hear is that of John Zerzan, the second is Franklin Lopez, the third is a member of the Crimthinc Ex-Worker Podcast collective and the final two are Rydra and Bellamy. Introductions will ensue momentarily. We’ll be speaking this hour about the projects they work on, about the medium of radio and podcast, about what folks have learned while doing this work and about how we feel it fits into the anarchist project of the abolition of hierarchies, the state and capital, if not civilization.

Check out some other radio/audio projects linked on our show website: http://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/links-to-check-out/

A-Radio on Syriza in Greece and upcoming anarchist events around Europe plus MUSIC!

aradio.blogsport.de
Download This Episode

This week, The Final Straw is featuring two segments from Anarchistisches Radio Berlin. Our friends at ARB recently conducted an interview with 3 members of the athens-based group of libertarian communists about the election of the leftist Syriza party in Greece, giving a anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist perspectives on what they’ve seen from Syriza and what they expect in the future.

After that ARB talked to members of the Slovenian radio collective, Crna Luknja, as well as Radio Libertaire from Paris and Vrje Bond of the Netherlands about upcoming anarchist bookfaires, the Pinksterlanddagen Camp, the imminent anarchist radio conference in Slovenia and more! Check out the work of A-Radio Berlin at aradio.blogsport.de

After those interviews we’ll hear some recent neo-crust from Russia, some recent death rock from France, punk from the U.S. and more.

Playlist

Alvaro Luna Hernandez on his case (rebroadcast) + music

https://denverabc.wordpress.com/prisoners-dabc-supports/political-prisoners-data
Download This Episode

“The main portion of the episode features an interview with Alvaro Luna Hernandez, a Chicano political prisoner serving a 50 year sentence in Texas for disarming a Sheriff who pulled a gun on him, and then fleeing. Mr. Hernandez speaks about his case, his legal history, his political development, and his imprisonment. Special thanks to the Central Texas Anarchist Black Cross for this material. More info on Alvaro can be found at”:
https://denverabc.wordpress.com/prisoners-dabc-supports/political-prisoners-database/alvaro-luna-hernandez/

After that, we hear recent metal releases by Mar and Soror.

Playlist