Therefore, this spontaneous action by people against racism doesn't necessarily equate to a dedicated continuity in the fight for freedom. This illusion of "multicultural unity" against racism will hold no real body, because of the absence of raw dialogic pedagogy and Socratic empathy (which is needed for transformative solidarity to occur) within society. In this reactive spontaneity, a majority of us are not taking the time to acknowledge the actual weight of interlocking systems that affect the oppressed community. Nor have those who choose to live in colour blindness spent enough time studying the sheer magnitude of white supremacy's legacy through a critical lens. A simple apology, armchair activism or diversifying your workplace through plaster policies will not suffice. How can we expect to generate longevity in the struggle for liberation if people only participate in the honeymoon period of the revolution, but never stay long enough to wade deep in the "funk" of what happens after the romance runs out? To believe that unity based on genuine solidarity can organically form without any critical framework in place is delusional. To glamorise the term ally, when there is no unity within our own community, reflects the long road to decolonisation. We have become a community that has morphed into individuals, we've lost our communalism under the system, diluting the power to refrain from the passive consumer role, never becoming the active participants we should be. Even in a time of unity, whiteness always finds its way to the centre of discussion (allyship fatigue, superficial apologies for privilege, false generosity, marketing tactics in the form of corporate solidarity etc.) And yes, I am fully aware as to why that is. However, in upholding the need to view our world through whiteness, we relieve ourselves from the responsibility to problematise anything outside of whiteness (gender, sexism, etc.). The core body of our solutions is "what can whiteness do for us or teach us"– allowing our freedom to be decided on our behalf, equating to the subject versus object theory. 

​

The white and black binary within the construct that is race has been in a constant battle of subject versus object since the birth of imperialism. Not to take away from the suffering and violence we as a community endure – but we need to understand that outside this narrative of anti-blackness, in the form of physical abuse, there are other systems of domination that dehumanise us into mere objects. We need to look at identity through a compound lens, to critically acknowledge identity doesn't have to be one-dimensional, and by doing so, it will allow us to understand the multiple oppressive apparatus working simultaneously with one another. Therefore, this notion that someone who is against racism (individually or institutionally) does not mean they are in favour of all other oppressive structures being dismantled. We saw it in the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s: where white women were against oppressive patriarchal structures, but not necessarily for liberating black women from other interlocking systems such as racism and capitalism. That being said, this also applies to some within my community – we witness it with narrow black nationalism where the main objective is tackling white supremacy, while denying the same energy raging against patriarchy, sexism or capitalism. What I am trying to say is, mobilisation has no substance without organisation. Kwame Ture kindly highlighted that "unity doesn't represent what you are against it represents what you are for" therefore being against a structure is somewhat obsolete, whereas being for something, embodies transformative energy. Meaning we can be unified against police brutality but not necessarily for moving towards an anti-exploitative society. Being 'against' merely influences superficial reform, being 'for' brings about empowerment to transgress towards abolition and the birth of replacement pro-human structures. We need a revolutionary way of thinking if we as a community are ever going to move from object to subject. 

So, when this pivotal moment occurred, I was drawn to analyse the climate before embracing a union without any organisation. Of course, the people's reaction was based on the weighty pressure of police brutality. However, I believe the influence of a world pandemic was a crucial catalyst for this voluntary solidarity. Arundhati Roy said "the pandemic is a portal" and it indeed was: we have many historical references in which pandemics have helped reset society's consciousness into transformative action (even if it's short-lived). These 8 minutes and 46 seconds were rooted in a time of a mild capitalist burnout, where people had respite and time to look inwards. The lack of distractions coupled with the dismantling of our unhealthy obsession with time, and the avoided conversation about race managed to outgrow the restriction of fragility. It found refuge in the voice boxes of neoliberals (whose ideals often cannot house the complex phenomenon that is race) and as well as the voice boxes of those of the oppressed who for so long have found themselves complacent in their fatigue. In this newfound desire to vocalise with pejorative, a superficial awaking occurred, frustratingly encouraged the terms ally and activist to coat loose lips. The chaos of social consciousness, allowed these titles pronounced onto anyone, including those who chose to see these 8 minutes and 46 seconds as a wrongful opportunity to emphasise individualism and less on communalism. 

What became apparent and exposed in this call to activism was the illusion of black unity in the slogan "Black Lives Matter". In this national attention on the black community, a cluster of cavities were brought to light. Under the umbrella of "Black lives Matter" and this grand attempt to confront the system of oppression, the underside of this community found itself in an egocentric predicament. We witnessed the sub-oppressors within the black community emerged sanitised in fragility, and what should have been a time of building critical frameworks was instead a time for exorcising the less powerful. The narrow lens which we inherited from the oppressor saw a large portion of our community's vexation with the idea of oppression being multi-dimensional. They only prioritised white supremacy, and the audacity to problematise any other system was seen as a distraction from the fight. This ideology is soaked in patriarchal domination, promoted by a group within our community that are desperate to assimilate whiteness. They are against white supremacy because it's the only structure they feel stands in the way of their turn to dominative power. They are positioned within our community as if their main objective is liberation for all. However, their protective drapes are brought down when anyone in our community tries to challenge the binaries of capitalist oppression, which to them makes their narrow fight more intricate. The irony is none of these fights for freedom are singular, they are intersected, and you can't remove one without the other. If we honour the complex layering involved in identity make-up, we can then detach from our fear of collectivism. When self-seeking, freedom becomes subjective; therefore, the meaning of freedom becomes an individual agenda and not for the benefit of a whole community. For example, a Black trans person, found in the social-economics of the under-class, will be oppressed under a host of structures - and so when they say "Black Trans Lives Matter" they are in no means against or distracting form the Black liberation fight. They are in fact the poster child for the Black liberation fight. Understanding that white supremacy is one pillar amongst others (gender and capitalism etc.) oppressing them – will allow a broader meaning of freedom for our community. 

So, in a time of wishful unity, I realised how difficult it is to naively believe race is all that is needed to unify us in the fight for freedom. However, in these 8 minutes and 46 seconds, I recognised that unless we denounce individualism and problematise the systems plaguing all our community – finding freedom will always be a subjective reality. We need to return to communalism, and the process in getting there will involve critical thinking and engaged pedagogy. There, in that moment, when we become subjects, we will find that the solutions for freedom will present themselves.

​

​