Search results

Originally published at OpenDemocracy in Brazilian Portuguese. Implementing a foreign principle on weapons policy can further exacerbate economic inequalities. The year 2021 was marked by legal incentives by the Bolsonaro administration to loosen restrictions around gun ownership in Brazil. In an effort to emulate the United States’ approach to guns, the president ran his election campaign on this platform, popularizing the gun hand gesture and eventually introducing 30 decrees on the subject. Of the decrees passed loosening “registration and acquisition of weapons and ammunition by hunters, collectors and shooters” (among other things), some later faced resistance from Senate. This resistance is unsurprising since, according to a census from 2019 (his first year in office), the majority of the Brazilian population strongly disagreed with the idea that loosening gun laws would translate into more public safety. There is also widespread agreement among researchers and NGOs that lax arrangements around gun ownership will exacerbate violence, and will encourage the already existing illegal arms trade in the country to grow and cheapen. Deviation from legal arms into illegality was already an issue before these decrees, with nearly 20 thousand weapons in the 10 years leading up to 2016, when the report was published by a parliamentary inquiry commission. This means that popularizing gun culture in Brazil is not about combatting organized crime, to the contrary — it will increase its supply of weapons. The issues with implementing a political principle from the United States regarding guns in Brazil, aside from it not even working in its country of origin, is that Brazilian society has starker wealth inequality. This class disparity is represented in the demographic which takes a stance on the gun issue. According to the census report from 2019, “of those interviewed who said they were in favor of making firearm ownership more flexible, most earn more than five minimum wages”. Meanwhile, “seven out of ten residents of Brazilian peripheries disagreed with the flexibilization gun possession”. In other words, the vast majority of those in support of strict gun control live closer to where organized crime operates. While a wealthier portion of the population which can afford to live in so-called safer neighborhoods tend to be supportive of loosening restrictions. In the United States, the issue of class permeates the debate on gun control from a slightly different place. A 2017 study describes “economic setbacks” as a main source of emotional attachment to gun ownership, a right which is already vastly granted in the country. This means that in the US, financial insecurity may motivate gun ownership — as a source of empowerment. The demographic of Brazilians who earn at least five times more than minimum wage may not be as distant from the demographic in the United States of people who feel economically disenfranchised. The social and historical context, however, informs not only how this demographic is described, but also how these individuals describe themselves. Someone who considers themselves upper middle class in Brazil could be considered lower middle class in the United States. Nevertheless, an aversion towards poverty, and the poor, is a common ground. Gender and race also mark gun control sentiments in both countries. In the US, those “who have expectations about what it means to be a white man in America today that are not being met” are more likely to be interested in gun ownership. In Brazil, race is more difficult to dichotomize due to a colonial history which encouraged miscegenation as opposed to segregation. Nevertheless, race does tend to follow class lines, since black Brazilians make up over 70% of the poorest segment of the population, and whites make up 70% of the richest. Considering these numbers, it should be noted that, in both countries, poorer black people are more likely to become victims of gun violence. Another major concern around loosening gun laws, perhaps more so in Brazil than in the United States, is a potential increase in femicide. “The term ‘femicide’ (femicidio) was particularly embraced in Latin America”, but it doesn’t mean it’s more widespread in that region. Brazil’s off-the-charts level of violence against women is a direct result of the fact that there has been an effort to name the issue. In the US, categorizing femicides as any other homicide may mask the fact that 92% of them are perpetrated by men the women knew. Apprehension around stating that these homicides happened because these victims are women doesn’t change the fact that the majority of the assailants are their boyfriends or husbands. It also doesn’t change the fact that “poverty is associated with domestic abuse”. Making it easier to own guns and keep them in family homes will likely exacerbate the already existing issue of domestic violence and the vulnerability of women faced with financial insecurity. For each situation a gun can be used to protect a family from a break-in, there are several other situations where this gun can be used to inflict harm on this family, either by inflaming domestic violence, expansion of the illegal arms trade by organized crime, or disproportionally victimizing marginalized households. Trigger Warning — The photos below are disturbing and show death. Operation of the Military and Civil Police, on July 21, leaves 19 dead in Complexo do Alemão | Fabio Teixeira The Role of the Police Police operations in Brazilian peripheries are notoriously deadly, and those killed are often uninvolved in criminal activities. They are just at the wrong place at the wrong time. If law enforcement institutions were excelling at their job, there would be no need for the State to transfer the responsibility of providing security to civilians. However, Bolsonaro’s encouragement of force, of violence, resonates with military police officers — who often become his avid supporters. As a researcher of public safety puts it, for an individual to support a politician who encourages amateurs to take on a role which is one’s professional responsibility is a "merely ideological question, not practical". This ideology, which loosely signifies traditional family values, conservative religious principles and gender roles, have no practical bearing in lowering violent crime rates, combatting organized crime, or protecting families in their homes. Last month, nearly 20 people were killed in a shoot-out between the military police and alleged drug traffickers in a neighborhood of Rio de Janeiro called Alemão Complex. Less than half of those killed had criminal records, at least two of them weren’t suspects at all, and one was a cop. This scenario is reoccurring; a recent report by the federal university of Niterói (UFF), financed by a German political foundation called Heinrich Böll, states that between 2007 and 2021, “17,929 operations were carried out by police in Rio de Janeiro. Of this total, 593 police operations resulted in massacres, totaling 2374 deaths.” There is no evidence showing these operations have been effective in combatting or stifling organized crime organizations, they have been effective in sustaining a prolonged reign of terror in marginalized communities. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that wealth inequality is progressively becoming intolerable. Poverty, crime, and the need for a safer society are concerns which possibly transcend ideological lines. The question is what the practical steps are to improve a social condition which leads to brutal violence from north to south of the globe. Could the solution be more guns, or more human dignity? _____ Mirna Wabi-sabi

“Today’s social science is like the production apparatus of modern society: everyone is within it and uses it, but only the bosses draw the profits. You cannot smash it apart – we are told – without pitching mankind back into barbarism. As a first objection, we might ask who said that human civilisation is indeed capital’s dearest concern. And modern workers know of very different ways of defeating capital, beyond the prehistoric cry, ‘Let’s break the machines!’ In short, big industry and its science are not the prize for whoever wins the class struggle. They are the battlefield itself. And so long as the enemy occupies that field, we must spray it with bullets, without crying over the roses that get destroyed along the way.” — Tronti, M. (2019) Workers and capital, Verso Books: London, p.20. Utopiapress.co.uk DIY zines and the capitalist division of labor DIY zines are not utopic objects made 100% by hand. These publications can be created at home, without industrial grade machinery. Which means, they don’t set out to be identical, profitable, or printed and distributed on a corporate scale. In other words, they are not books you think will sell, they are the book you want to read. On Capitalism Industrialized mass production is a tool for maximum profit within an expanding capitalist system, therefore, its antithesis would be the self-production of goods. To do-it-yourself is an art form as well as a political statement, because, in late capitalism, it is impossible to live 100% outside this current industrial system. Therefore, the conversation about this system happens as an abstract representation, provocation, and at best — praxis. In this sense, the DIY zine is the antithesis of the mass-produced bestseller book. Books and publications may depend on a capitalist production, but creating them step by step can help us demystify the process of production in order to make it more comprehensive and accessible. The issue of division of labor was discussed in print, and about print, throughout much of the 19th century, and is still a relevant discussion today. In the book What is Art, Tolstoy exclaims that “the laborers produce food for themselves and also food that the cultured class accept and consume, but that the artists seem too often to produce their spiritual food for the cultured only — at any rate that a singularly small share seems to reach the country laborers who work to supply the bodily food!” (1897). This anti-capitalist approach towards art and publishing through doing away with borders between classes and their labor is further highlighted by Lucy Parsons, who invites her readers to “make of [the paper] what [they] choose” (Salutation, 1905), and that freedom will only come to be when “labor is no longer for sale” (What Freedom Means, 1905). In removing the distinction between the producing and the authoring, we remove (to the best of our abilities) the capitalist division of labor. Therefore, the artistic anarchist publication is a legacy, a valuable resource passed on through generations, for approaching persistent global socioeconomic issues. On DIY DIY culture, as a facet of the punk movement, addressed, specifically, the question of massive mainstream consumption and how it led to a pervasive form of homogenization of human expression. Punk, from its inception, was at the intersection of music, aesthetics, and politics — being anti the establishment which permeated significant realms of the human experience. It’s a misconception “that punk is essentially a white (or Anglo) Do-it-Yourself participatory subculture” (Ensminger in “Coloring Between the Lines of Punk and Hardcore: From Absence to Black Punk Power”, 2010). Race and class were at the root of punk rock, which was moved by an angered white working class in direct contact with black people and black culture in the US and the UK. And the only reason why there were marginalized black people in these places where punk sprung up was because of an African Diaspora induced by colonialism. Punk is, as is DIY culture and its publishing, an intersectional experience. Throughout history and throughout the globe, be it 1880s Russia in the eyes of Tolstoy or 1980s UK in the eyes of the Clash, marginalized communities have needed art to have their voices heard. Art as aesthetics, music or literature has to always be subversive in nature. And we need to subvert the status quo now more than ever. _____ Mirna Wabi-Sabi

Originally published at Abeautifulresistance.org To sign off on; phrasal verb meaning “to give one’s approval to something.” We all sign things nowadays, but not all of us get to sign off on things. The use of a signature as a way to grant approval is not the same as the more commonplace practice of signing things like “terms and conditions”. This distinction ought to me made because in identifying when a signature is not empowering or representative of consent, we can look for alternative tools of resistance against the established order which uses signatures to control and subjugate disenfranchised segments of the population. Signatures earn significance through institutions of Power, governments which establish order and have the resources to enforce this order. In any hierarchical structure, signing off on something is indicative of status, as is the ability to make someone sign an unfavorable agreement. A good example of this is our routine practice of downloading apps into our smartphones. Apple, for instance, signs off on the apps it allows on its app store, but the terms and conditions we agree to when we download them are certainly unfavorable to us as consumers. During the covid pandemic, a “privacy nutrition label” was introduced to apps in the store, supposedly simplifying access consumers have to the content of these conditions. The labels are probably a result of the GDPR, which Apple cites in its page detailing Privacy Policies, and requires not only transparency over these policies but also for this information to be presented in a format which people can easily understand. Unfortunately, these “nutrition labels” are neither effective nor accurate, exacerbating the issue of unfavorable agreements we consent to through digital signatures. Earlier in 2022, in the wake of abortion bans in the United States, women encouraged each other to remove period-tracking apps from their phones for fear of potential privacy breeches and legal backlash. This is a way of not signing, not consenting, to personal data sharing. It is also a form of general strike, provoking a sharp turn in the industry. But this is a privileged position to be in—to be able to delete something from your smartphone. Nearly a quarter of a million immigrants in the United States are tracked by ICE with the use of an app officials describe as more “humane” than ankle bracelets or incarceration. Unsurprisingly, many do not agree with this description, which is why there is an ongoing court case against the Department of Homeland Security, claiming a violation of the Freedom of Information Act and concern over the “drastic increase in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP)”. This program embodies how, nowadays, privacy policies of applications can quite literally become prisons. In Europe, due to the 2015 “refugee crisis”, data monitoring was considered by government institutions as a tool for predicting the “movements of migrants into Europe”. The European Space Agency pitched several EU organizations, including Frontex, on “commercially viable “disruptive smart technologies””. In a report from 2019 on this subject, the ethical and practical limitations of this practice were considered, but no guarantee is given that this tool hasn’t been or isn’t being used. Even though the report acknowledges that users of this technology practice racial profiling—which they describe as an “overfocus on African countries”—and that machine-learning reliant on unpredictable data produces unreliable results, the conclusion describes this method as a “nascent workstream”. In other words, if this deeply flawed and unethical method of handling humanitarian crises isn’t yet widespread, it surely is about to become. Agreeing to dangerous terms and conditions of applications which track movement and seek to predict future movements of people like you infringes upon freedoms of whole segments of the world population. But there are even more profound existential threats to migrants upon arrival in Europe. INTEGRATION CONTRACTS ASYLUM REQUESTS IN EUROPE ARE SIGNED OFF ON BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND SEEKERS ARE MADE TO SIGN SEVERAL FORMS—INCLUDING “INTEGRATION CONTRACTS”. The criteria used by those with the power to sign off on these requests are kept from the segment of the public with the most stake in these immigration policies: asylum seekers. It could be said that it’s in the interest of EU countries to have asylum seekers oblivious to the inner workings of its institutions and their decision-making processes. These government branches may not want asylum seekers to have information which can help them present their case more effectively. This is exemplified in the 2014 court case YS and others, where incoherent justifications were used to deny migrants the right to access personal data, a right protected by European privacy laws. In some instances, it was claimed that the right to privacy of government staff and their line of reasoning trumps the plaintiffs’. Meanwhile, when an asylum request is approved, the migrant is required to sign contracts which, among other things, subject them to compulsory “civic training”. The French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII) calls this the “Republican Integration Contract” (CIR), where “newly arrived foreigners” are taught “the principles [and] values [...] of the Republic, the rights and duties associated with life in France and the organization of French Society”. The granting of the immigration request comes attached to the requirement to resign certain aspects of your cultural identity. Namely, robust integration efforts are not only about inserting immigrants into the workforce, but also a “shield against radicalization”—an umbrella term for extreme cultural differences. The Netherlands has a similar program, where “knowledge of the Dutch society” is mixed in with Dutch language skills. They go even further, in requiring “voluntary” work in businesses, and requiring health insurance from companies which refuse to provide information in any language other than Dutch. I have gone through this process—twice or three times a week I “volunteered” vacuuming a video store; learned about ‘black pete’ (but not about the country’s colonial history); and had to sign up and pay for health services I couldn’t use, because workers refused to give me information in English over the phone. In Brazil, a parallel can be made with the integration efforts of Venezuelan refuges. In official reports, there is no mention of civic training and values, instead, there is mention of opportunities for certification and work. The UNHCR report from 2021 describes Venezuelan refugees in Brazil to be more likely to have completed stages of education, but they earn less and work more hours than their Brazilian counterparts. There is no compulsory integration program. What I take from this approach to dealing with migration is that people in Western countries are somewhat afraid that people from elsewhere will do to them what they did to these other parts of the world—show up uninvited and impose their customs on locals. There is an active effort to demoralize, to humiliate not just any immigrant, but those from countries the West has dominated and continues to dominate to this day. New technologies are not being developed to liberate, they are being developed in large part to extend and strengthen already-existing power structures. Considering that today it’s nearly impossible to not produce data (from the day we are born, documents and data are collected and stored about us), what can we do to disrupt data processing strategies, ensure a certain level of privacy, and allow for freedom of movement? Deleting period-tracking apps is one thing, but sometimes I think increasing data input, and decreasing its predictability can also be useful. Machine learning and algorithms cannot be effective in predicting human behavior, especially when us humans resist the efforts being put towards turning us into machines. Encouraging difference, uniqueness, can be a radical thing, because the pressure to “integrate” is more than a de-radicalization tool, it’s an effort to predict and control our behaviors, even the most intimate ones. _____ MIRNA WABI-SABI is a writer, editor and translator. She is founder and editor-in-chief of the Plataforma9 initiative, author of the bilingual pocket book Anarcho-Transcreation, and site editor of Gods and Radicals.

Originally published at Abeautifulresistance.org To Instrumentalize [Verb]: to give instruments or conditions for something to happen. Instrumental [Noun]: which serves as an instrument; which helps the action. There has been another massacre in a Brazilian favela. Nearly 20 people were killed in a shoot-out between the military police and alleged drug traffickers in a neighborhood of Rio de Janeiro called Alemão Complex. A recent report by the federal university of Niterói (UFF), financed by a German political foundation called Heinrich Böll, states that between 2007 and 2021, “17,929 operations were carried out by police in Rio de Janeiro. Of this total, 593 police operations resulted in massacres, totaling 2374 deaths.” These deaths are not inevitable, which is why the report also proposes a solution—to further develop a “democratic regime”, in order to legally limit the actions of law enforcement. This solution, however, fails to consider that, though avoidable, these casualties are not unintended, and are precisely through the democratic system that these extermination policies and impunity schemes have been put in place. Since the 60s, Brazil has lived in a dichotomy between Military Dictatorship and Democracy. We went from a right-wing US-backed regime to a charismatic leftist party leader of a working-class background, who was oppressed by that very dictatorial regime. Now, to the astonishment of those who subscribed to this binary political approach, it was the democratic system which gave voice to and elected supporters of the dictatorship. Nowadays, believing a “stronger” democracy is the solution to police violence is like believing taller buildings is the solution to rising sea levels. Do we really want to grow a structure without addressing the foundational issues of racism, classism, and blatant disregard for human life when it doesn’t benefit capitalism? The inefficiencies of Democracy have been discussed since its inception in Ancient Greece. And it would also be safe to say that the philosophical exercise around “democracy” has been a Western endeavor. One of my favorite quotes about this is, "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" (Alfred North Whitehead in Process and Reality). These endless footnotes are an enduring effort to put European values, such as Democracy, at the forefront of any reading of the human condition. In academia, to speak of philosophy is really to refer to a specific group of thinkers, from a specific era—white men from the 19th century. Of the demographic of thinkers which are best equipped to theorize about the sociopolitical conditions favela residents are subjected to, these 19-century-European men are towards the bottom of the list. And the reality is that the demographic which is at the top of this list is exactly the one ending up in body-bags, victim to police violence. This is not by coincidence. Marielle Franco, a queer black woman from a favela in Rio de Janeiro, was a political theorist active in government. She was assassinated in 2018. Her college thesis at the federal university of Niterói (UFF) was about police violence in favelas and how their operations don’t work. The solution presented under the chapter “Popular organization and possible resistances” includes the word “instrumentalization”. Specifically, to render favela residents instrumental. According to Franco, the solution to combatting police violence in the favelas lies in the strengthening of the consciousness that “the favela must be respected” by the government and its “security agents”. Not the consciousness of these agents and government officials, though—the consciousness of the residents. It’s not in the best interest of those in power (government and those financing it) to have marginalized peoples (favela residents) becoming instrumental in society by pursuing their own aims and influencing policy. The established order, which in Brazil today is some type of Democracy, is better off massacring rather than instrumentalizing the favela. It costs less to kill than to restructure society to eradicate misery, poverty, racism, and exploitation. The only ‘justification’ for this slaughter is that these people ‘deserved’ to die because they were either criminals or at the wrong place at the wrong time. Obviously, that’s unacceptable. One of the most unacceptable things about Democracy, though, is when it serves as a means for an instrumentalized segment of the population to pursue the extermination of ‘the other’. The overrepresented use their power to eradicate the underrepresented, igniting a vicious democratic cycle where in each election the opposition gets smaller and is buried deeper. And one thing is for sure, the end of the Brazilian military dictatorship did not mean the end of militarization of Brazilian society. This is because, according to Marielle Franco, militarization is representative of how making money is still more important than protecting human lives. “The fight for demilitarization of society, of the State […] became a priority for those who dream of a world where life is above profit.” (UPP, page 135, n-1 edition, 2018). The 2022 report on police massacres argues that the “volume and a way of carrying out slaughters points to a horizon contrary to democratization.” However, nothing about Democracy “points towards a horizon opposite” to militarization. In fact, militarization has been carried out by the United States in the name “Democracy” for nearly a century. Could it be that Democracy is just a new word for the reign of capitalist profit? It isn’t only in the public security sector that vestiges of the Military Dictatorship can be seen. For as long as capitalist values endure in society, so will the need for militarization—to carry out the extermination of an ‘unprofitable’ segment of the population. Moreover, so will these values be represented by the ballot. Profit as a general concept wouldn’t have to be demonized if it didn’t so often come at the expense of people’s lives, and I’m not convinced Democratic elections are equipped or designed to prevent this from happening. More importantly, will it be through the vote that we can guarantee dignity to everyone? Will there be one politician who will do what needs to be done to guarantee every person has a roof over their head, food in their bellies, and the strengthened consciousness to become “instrumental” in society? When that happens, the role of the politician will be utterly obsolete. TRIGGER WARNING: THE IMAGES BELOW MAY DEPICT DEAD BODIES. Photos by Fabio Teixeira. July 21st, Alemão Complex, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ______ Written by Mirna Wabi-Sabi

Originally published at A Beautiful Resistance in English, at Le Monde Diplomatique Brasil in Portuguese. Roger Waters' new tour "This Is Not A Drill", which began in Pittsburgh July 6th, doesn't have a message — it's a conversation. The show is Waters' invitation to sit down, have a drink, and talk about something f*cking real: love, life, despair and how people in power are destroying humanity. Power, here, is not discussed in terms of political parties, in fact, U.S. Democrats are not spared from scrutiny, super-power world leaders are all painted in the same shade as war criminals. For an artist with a half-a-century long career, Waters shows he can keep up with the ever-changing landscape of entertainment and technology, while being overtly uninterested in using this ability to follow trends. He forges his own path musically, visually and politically — unapologetically — as he has done since the 60s. This authentic path is not an imposition or a lecture. Instead, he asks the audience to engage in serious reflection and debate about unavoidable threats to the human race and human dignity. As friends often disagree, the bond between the artist and the audience is not about holding the same views, but about sharing profound feelings, especially in the face of despair. If you're unwilling to have a conversation about the tragedy humankind has been submitted to, and the individuals and institutions responsible for it, don't show up. Having said that, the overt political opinion does not exclude audience members with different views. If anything, it's inclusive of everyone, and not just Pink Floyd fans. Even if you have never listened to Pink Floyd (I know it's hard to imagine that, but it's possible), or know nothing about them, here is an opportunity for an introduction. The show embraces and celebrates people of all races, ethnicities, gender and sexual identities, aside from fiercely advocating for every marginalized group's right to live and thrive. Because of this balance between nostalgia and pressing contemporary issues, this performance speaks to at least three generations, from young adults to their parents and grandparents. The social criticism is not subtle when it addresses issues of colonialism, police violence, sanctions, social media, nationalism, racism, wealth disparity, the patriarchy, and so on. But as a critic, Roger does more than tear down — he seeks to build community, unity, and respect for human life in all its diversity. Though one person here and there may be seen frowning at the "Reproductive Rights" display, you can be sure to see them singing their hearts out to Eclipse a few minutes later. It's not news that Waters' politics have rubbed plenty of people the wrong way, he knows that and addresses it head on. Those who think Roger's lack of support for Israel means he is antisemitic, for instance, will see that this show not only doubles down on his pro-Palestinian position, but also shows how his stance is nothing but radically hostile towards Fascism. If you are open to this conversation, it becomes clear that there is agreement over how combatting Fascism is imperative, and so is understanding how this ideology manifests itself then and now. Today, who holds the power and is massacring, surveilling and demoralizing innocent people? If you allow yourself to join this conversation with him, you will see that his unyielding opinion on this question is: The U.S. Army, the police, the politicians in charge of them, and the ultra-wealthy who are in charge of these politicians. In an attempt to avoid any more spoilers, the visuals and the unique stage set-up can only be described as spectacular, and new wowing features are introduced continuously throughout the concert, keeping thousands each night on the edge of their seats. The guitar solos and back-up singer singalongs are bound to gratify any die-hard Pink Floyd fan. While the dynamic ebbs and flows of the set list, not to mention the fantastic saxophone solos, are bound to keep any music enthusiast moving. Above all, Roger Waters' iconic presence on stage is both fierce and warm. He's personal and heartfelt, but stern and authentic. Prepare for both extremes of affection and well-deserved f*ck offs, but most importantly, for his wonderfully familiar voice rocking to some of your all-time favorite songs. _______ Written by Mirna Wabi-Sabi and photographed by Kate Izor.

PDF available here. Abstract: Artists’ publications are often used in contemporary art studies in discussions about the printed page. However, these publications go beyond their nomenclatures and place in art institutions. The boundaries of visual arts are increasingly blurred, and discussions of works of art become more potent when viewed within the broader spectrum of visual culture. Aesthetics have the power to produce knowledge and establish relations with ways of living and being in the world and throughout history. Publications, as such, are social places that can mediate these relationships between people, especially when it involves issues like feminism, capitalism, and decoloniality. The Jornal de Borda— an anarchist visual culture newspaper circulated in Latin America in Portuguese and Spanish between 2015 and 2021 — is an example of artistic expression through printing.It strategizes the name of dissenting bodies — referred to as “corpas” — in the context of art within visual culture; it establishes relations between these bodies and anarchism within the Latin American context; and the aesthetic relates directly to other newspapers from the last century, such as A Plebe, honoring history as it makes history. PDF available here. You can also read it in full at the Vista website. Available in English and Portuguese. ___________ Fernanda Grigolin Postgraduate Diploma in Visual Culture and Latin American Art, Catholic University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil Mirna Wabi-Sabi Plataforma9p9, Brazil

Written by Mirna Wabi-Sabi and photographed by Aiyana Leong-Knauer. Originally published at G&R. In the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade, frustration and disappointment with the Rule of Law is widespread. This isn’t the case just in the U.S., and it’s astonishing that people around the globe still had any hope and trust left to lose in this political philosophy. The Rule of Law is so inherent in our lives, we sometimes forget it’s a political philosophy that is imposed by force, and requires incredible amounts of social and material resources to uphold. Some built-in features of this philosophy which guarantee its scope of social influence are: the law mustn’t be too understandable or too precise. There is a deliberate effort put into making laws and legal texts open for interpretation, and into making interpretation out of reach for the public. Therefore, even if a law protecting a certain right exists, it is not often that we know what it says or how to use legal text to our advantage. This distinction can be seen, inter alia, between a law which protects abortion v. the ability to access abortion (i.e. to exercise the right) — both of which were already weak and became severely weaker. This paradigm is a global affliction, and affects all marginalized peoples. The YS and others case shows how the Rule of Law in Europe, though filled with texts which are presented as exemplary in how civilizations should operate, is an uphill battle for non-Europeans, and exemplifies how even when a law technically exists, the right it proposes to guarantee isn’t always accessible. The Eu Court Of Justice Case Ys And Others In 2014, a decision was made in the EU Court of Justice (ECJ in the CJEU) about the rights of asylum seekers to access the personal data in their asylum requests. Access to personal data is a European right, but there are several instances where this access may be restricted or interpretations which lead to it being denied. In the case of these asylum seekers, who are referred to as YS, M and S, their right to access documents, containing the legal analysis behind the decision on their application, was denied in several judicial levels before arriving at the European Union court. At this highest court, the interpretative question was: Does the legal analysis in the file of an applicant constitute as personal data? A large portion of the population of the European Union doesn’t know they have the right of access to personal data. Of the portion that does, not many know which circumstances constitute as exceptions; and of those, there is still the question of how to make an access request, and how to know if the response, lack of response, or manner of response to an access request is lawful. Once a person goes through all these steps and receives access to their personal data, how to know if the data is complete? From the files of YS, M and S, there is no question that the “applicant’s name, date of birth, nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion and language” (CURIA, paragraph 38) are defined as personal data and should be granted access to. However, certain countries in the EU disagreed about whether the documents with the legal analyses of the asylum request of the applicant should also be considered personal data. The Netherlands and France, for instance, did not consider the analysis to fit the description of personal data because it’s not related to the residence permit applicant, instead, it’s related to “a purely abstract interpretation of the law” (CURIA, paragraph 40). But there might be another, obfuscated, reason for it. An interpretation of the law is not purely abstract when it applies to the specific case of a person. And since this interpretation is information which relates to a person, it’s personal data. Beyond that, it could be said that it’s in the interest of the Dutch and French governments to have asylum seekers oblivious to the inner workings of its institutions and their decision-making processes. In Brazil, for example, it’s illegal to sell weed but not illegal to carry for personal use. There is no specific legal amount one may carry, which draws the line between personal use and drug trafficking. The reason for that is to make it harder for drug traffickers to use the law to get away with their crime, by carrying a maximum amount of weed at the time. If someone is caught with weed, it’s up to the cop to decide if the amount constitutes personal use or not. So, the recurring, well-known scenario which ends up playing out is — if a poor black teen or a rich white teen are caught with the same amount of weed, the black kid is seen as too poor to have that much weed, so it must be for sale; while the white kid is wealthy enough to not have to sell weed for a living, so it must be for personal use. That’s a legal interpretation, applied to each individual case relating to a person. One goes to jail while the other is let go, perhaps by paying out a meager bribe. It’s not far-fetched to imagine that the Dutch immigration office (IND) doesn’t want to reveal the reasoning behind their legal decisions, because they don’t want asylum seekers to have information which might help them present their case more effectively. However, that was not stated in the official publication of the decision. Instead, the argument was that, in the M case, access to the document might infringe upon the “freedom of the case worker responsible” for analyzing the application (paragraph 25). This is, indeed, an exception to the right of access to personal data — when access by an applicant infringes upon the rights and freedoms of someone else, more so than the lack of access infringes upon the rights and freedoms of the applicant. In M’s case, I’d argue denying access infringes upon the rights of the applicant more than the granting of the right infringes upon the case worker’s freedom. That’s clearly up to “interpretation”, but it’s not a purely abstract view of the law because it applies to M’s case in particular. The parallel between the rights of abortion in the U.S., of access to personal data in the E.U., and to have weed for personal use in Brazil highlights the global and intersectional nature of the Rule of Law. This political philosophy has problematic built-in features, which are deliberate, though often obfuscated. When it was in place, the right to an abortion improved bodily autonomy in the U.S. to a bare minimum, and it was already not enough to ensure people’s lives were free and healthy. The asylum and data privacy policies in Europe were not and are still not enough to ensure equal access to the rights they claim to offer. And drug possession charges in Brazil are plagued by racist and classist “legal interpretations”. In the eyes of the law, it is the marginalized members of society — women, LGBTQIA+, immigrants, black people — who are guilty until proven innocent. Because, if the society we live in is tainted with racism, sexism and classism, there is no way this stain won’t be reflected in the Rule of Law and its convoluted language designed to give room to the interpretation of an elite. The Rule of Law is not designed to be democratically improved upon, it’s designed to work according to the whims of those already in a position of power, and who have all the interest and resources to retain this power. The Law does not and will not protect those of us who fight every day for scraps of empowerment. Perhaps it’s when we stop hoping the government and its laws will rescue us from the misery they put us in, that we will begin to invest our hope and our trust into an autonomous initiative which makes the Law not only less of a threat, but also obsolete. ______ Written by Mirna Wabi-Sabi and photographed by Aiyana Leong-Knauer.

Written by Mirna Wabi-Sabi and photographed by Fabio Teixeira. Originally published at G&R. Recycling and single use plastics are often talked about in mainstream media in the context of environmental sustainability. Meanwhile, fossil fuels and the meat industry are brought up as sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Food waste seems to have taken a backseat in both of these discussions, and when it’s brought up, it’s more so within the framework of morality than measurable environmental damage. Kids are told to finish their dinners because “there are children starving in Africa”, or that food shouldn’t be wasted because of the environmental cost of producing and transporting food to the table. The carbon footprint of food waste is associated with other, related, unsustainable industries such as packaging, transport and factory farming — but not only. The difference between food waste and loss is that loss happens before the food arrives at the consumer’s table; in farms, storage and transporting. Waste, on the other hand, is in our garbage bags. But unfortunately, there isn’t yet a robust incentive to collect data on it. According to the 2021 UN Food Waste Index report: “An estimated 8-10 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions are associated with food that is not consumed (Mbow et al., 2019, p. 200) – and yet none of the Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement mention food waste (and only 11 mention food loss) (Schulte et al., 2020).” (UNEP, 2021, Page 20.) Food waste is as significant to the discussion of sustainability as food loss — more significant if we consider that mitigating its damage is within the reach of anyone in an average household. Food decomposing in landfills releases methane into the atmosphere, amounting to 4.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2 eq) annually (UNEP, 2021). This means over 4 times the global emissions from flights in 2018 (1.04 GtCO2, Our World in Data, 2020), 87% of “global road transport emissions” (FAO, 2015), or “32.6 million cars’ worth of greenhouse gas emissions” in the U.S. alone (WWF). Of all stages of food production which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, household consumption has the highest carbon footprint. When added, waste from production and storage emit about the same amount of greenhouse gases as from consumption alone. And not all foods contribute equally to this footprint. While meat, for instance, amounts to less than 5% of total food wastage, it contributes to over 20% of the footprint. Starchy roots, on the other hand, have the reverse effect, where they represent almost 20% of the total wastage, but only 5% of the footprint (FAO, 2015). It will come as no surprise that high income regions of the world waste more food than lower income regions, even if data isn’t systematically collected in some countries. In European countries and in the United States, grocery shops have been known to pour bleach over expired commodities, leading France to be the first nation to ban the practice in 2015, unanimously passing a law aimed at cutting down on food waste (Time, 2015). Nevertheless, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN reasonably assumed a “larger progress margin” for “developing” countries on what can be achieved in food waste mitigation by 2030 (FAO, 2015). Few behavior changes necessary for handling climate change overlap the issue of poverty and carbon footprint so blatantly. A shift in how food is consumed can combat food insecurity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. It should be unimaginable to choose food waste over distributing food for free and sharing basic-need resources. If not at the corporate food industry level, at the very least we can do something in the realms of our own kitchens, those of us who have kitchens. What can we do to ensure no food ends up in our garbage bags? Some of the most intuitive suggestions are: avoid over-buying, avoid over-cooking, store properly, freeze, consciously prioritize your meals based on what will expire first, share meals with other families/your community, and compost. Discarding food waste in the drain is not a solution, because it not only can negatively affect wildlife, organic material left over from water treatment will end up in landfills anyway (Cary Institute, 2016). Composting is the best solution for disposing of non-edible foods because methane is produced “by microbes in the absence of oxygen”, and the composting process is aerobic, meaning, involving/requiring oxygen (Government of Western Australia, 2021). Many believe that composting is not possible in an urban setting, but that isn’t the case. When executed properly, the process can be done in small places with minimal odor (that is when a community initiative isn’t realistic). It may even be done with cardboard, which can considerably reduce the amount of waste produced in a household by disposing of both organic waste and paper recycling at the same time (Conserve Energy Future). To live with and handle one’s own waste goes a long way to incentivize members of a household to produce less waste in the first place. And we wouldn’t be painting a clear picture of the issue of food waste management if we didn’t acknowledge the intersectional nature of how many households operate. Gender roles are still a factor in most families, and domestic chores disproportionately fall on women, as well as domestic workers being mostly women (ILO). A recent U.K. study reveals that the pandemic has exacerbated the gender inequality of domestic chores, as women maintained their social-isolation level of “involvement in housework and childcare” after they went back to work, while fathers did not (Demographic Research, 2022). In this sense, any solution to minimizing food waste should involve the interest, understanding and actions of all household individuals past their pre-school years. “Solving problems, being creative and getting results for … efforts” are things people as young as grade-schoolers should be experiencing (Healthy Children), especially when it involves such an indispensable and habitual human practice — eating. “Several studies highlight that if current dietary trends are maintained, this could lead to a significant climate-change emissions from agriculture of approximately 20 GtCO2-eq per year by 2050.” (FOA, 2020) Clearly, there is a problem to be solved, minimal levels of creativity are required for the solution, and our efforts can not only have measurable results, but can also improve the health of our families, our communities and our planet. Glossary Carbon footprint: The total amount of greenhouse gases emitted by an action (Nature Conservancy). CO2: Carbon dioxide. CO2e: All greenhouse gases. Food Loss: Occurs in the production stage of the food industry; at farms, in processing and transport. Food Waste: Occurs after food arrives at the consumer when it is discarded. Greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide (CO2); Methane (CH4); Nitrous oxide (N2O); Industrial gases — Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). (EIA, 2021) GtCO2: One billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. (Law insider) GWP 1 (Ecometrica). GtCO2eq: Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) stands for a unit based on the global warming potential (GWP) of different greenhouse gases (Climate Policy Info Hub). GWP: Global warming potential. Methane: “1kg of methane causes 25 times more warming over a 100 year period compared to 1kg of CO2, and so methane [h]as a GWP of 25.” (Ecometrics). “Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices, land use and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills [emphasis added].” (EPA, 2022) Bibliography Cary Institute (2016) “Stop putting food waste down the drain” . Climate Policy Info Hub . Conserve Energy Future. “Is Cardboard Compostable?” . Demographic Research (2022) “Gender inequality in domestic chores over ten months of the UK COVID-19 pandemic: Heterogeneous adjustments to partners’ changes in working hours” . Ecometrica . EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration (2021) . EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2022) . FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2020) . FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2015) . Government of Western Australia, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (2021) . Healthy Children . ILO, International Labour Organization . Law Insider . Nature Conservancy . Our World in Data (2020) . Time (2015) “French Parliament Unanimously Approves Law to Cut Food Waste” . UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme (2021) Food Waste Index report . WWF .

Universidad de Costa Rica Legends, myths and history come together to recover dreams and illusions from ancient cultures around the world to create new chimeras and pursue them until they become a reality. This is possible thanks to a publication that is, in itself, an ideal of a group of students from the University of Costa Rica (UCR) that has been achieved: the virtual magazine Quimera. According to Ivannia Victoria Marín Fallas, director of the magazine, Quimera is an independent cultural and educational project, generated from the initiative of a group of students from the UCR, which aims to spread art and knowledge; not only virtually or in print, but also through activities that involve community members. The axes of the publication are literature, history, folklore and, in general, the heritage of ancient cultures and their survival . The magazine is published every six months and is virtual, although some copies are also printed. According to Marín, who is a classical philologist and current student of the Academic Master's Degree in Classical Literature, the profits obtained from the sale of each issue are directed to a different non-governmental social or animal welfare organization on each occasion. “Since the foundation of this project, we have been working constantly, non-profit, to encourage and disseminate literary creation and knowledge of various cultures through our digital publications. We have also organized activities such as the III AFL Literary Contest of Greco-Roman Mythology, in collaboration with the Association of Philology Students of the UCR, among other activities”, explained Marín. The director assures that the magazine has already reached 88 countries and exceeds 45,000 views. The articles have been read in nations such as Russia, Italy, China, Brazil, New Zealand and Spain, the country with the highest number of views followed by Costa Rica and Mexico. The fourth volume of the magazine will be presented next June 15 at the Cultural Center of Spain in Costa Rica, starting at 6:00 pm, and will feature the participation of the editorial team made up of Félix Alejandro Cristiá, Victoria Marín Fallas and Masiel Corona Santos. Likewise, there will be the presence of Penélope Gamboa, Xochipilli Hernández, Ulises Paniagua and Xóchitl Cuauhtémoc Xicoténcatl, who have generated content for the magazine. For more information you can visit the site of the virtual magazine Chimera by clicking HERE. The fourth volume of Chimera, in the words of the editor Félix Cristiá: By virtue of the lyrics that accompany this volume, we enter the mysterious plant world, thanks to that attempt to understand the Arborescent Language that Josué Rodríguez Calderón invokes in his poem, perhaps with the desire to go through the laws that have created the human beings and reach the simplicity at the same time so complex to which Xochipilli Hernández alludes. Along this path, we could perceive natural changes as a heartbeat – Xóchitl Cuauhtémoc insinuates – that becomes memory, an Offering. There are many ways to get close. Isn't that the secret kept by the wise grandfather mentioned by Hubert Malina? These secrets, visible only to those who use their senses above reason, rest among the trees recited to us by Alberto Arecchi and Carlos Belziti, in the Lilies by Pablo Guisado, in the rain by Masiel Corona Santos, on the corn. We speak of a being that metamorphoses itself. Our ancestors had the courage to try to decipher the synthesis between the visible and the unexperienced, but they could do no more than watch carefully. Through the myth, and perhaps what most encourages us at this time, the story, they interpreted and taught the changes of nature, as Angélica Santa Olaya reminds us in her Fruits of love, or Aldo Vicente Favero with his legendary seed. Just like those masters of universal letters, who found in the story the way to approach the fantastic world, Ulises Paniagua tells us about the mandrakes, and Ricardo Evangelista about a boy from the forest who looks with horror at the ax of civilized man. Similarly, Eduardo Honey Escandón recalls the magic of the mangroves, veins of the Earth that have shaped a structure that renews itself, sometimes as strong and stubborn as the determined trunk that Penélope Gamboa tells us about, and in others as fragile as the margarita of María Pérez Yglesias. Recalling the passion of writing to learn, learning to investigate, and research to spread, Patricia Zanatta shares a little about the medicinal secrets of Andean plants, which is in turn the story of an entire population. Through a return to the forest to which the essay by Carlos Guzmán (Gani) invites us, where human rules do not rule, but rather the incessant wonder of children, we finally get rid of the daring thought that we can only learn from the specialists and scientists; we begin to pay more attention to the leaves, the petals, or the ponds, as Mirna Wabi-Sabi presents us, because despite the incredible advances of science, the human being is not yet capable of replicating and predicting all the facets of the nature kingdom. These texts (written in Spanish, Portuguese, Mè'phàà, Nahuatl and Bribri) together account for the different manifestations of knowledge and imagination, transmitted through various styles and languages, inspired in turn by a whole world that, If we adopt the beliefs of the authors with whom we have dealt, it could be a single, enormous, exalted entity that nevertheless manifests itself in innumerable forms so that the human being can understand it in various ways, and thus, perhaps, can also perceive itself as part of the same splendid whole. "Quimera seeks to reconcile the values ​​of universality and diversity through myth, history and art in general." (Ivannia Victoria Marín Fallas, director of the magazine Chimera) ________ Universidad de Costa Rica

For at least 2 centuries, the alienating division of labor within capitalism is discussed among political writers. We may not always use Marxist jargon, but we, as the so-called working class, experience this alienation every day. Yet, first-hand accounts and diverse narratives are overshadowed by the writings of communist icons. Marxist theory is often equated with a well-grounded criticism of the capitalist system, as opposed to working people’s lived experiences and knowledge. I am here to dispute that, for it is clear to me that anti-capitalism was and is not exclusive to Marxist thinkers, and Marx did not ‘coin’ the ‘concept’ of anti-capitalism. The first time I was properly confronted with the issue of 'anti-capitalism equals communism’ was in Budapest, about a decade ago. I was there to present my DIY zine project, which was as a tool for overcoming the framework of intellectual elites being unwilling to perform the manual labor required of a print publication. Naively, I described the DIY approach as a disruption of capitalism. The space was historically anti-fascist and of Jewish resistance, and it surprised me that this did not necessarily mean the audience had heard of or knew something about anarchism. When the term “anti-capitalist” was spoken, “pro-USSR” was heard, and all the transgenerational trauma of the Soviet invasion of Hungary flooded in. At the time, the discussion seemed clear-cut enough to me, “sure, communism is not our goal either”, but being critical of capitalism was such a trigger, that there was no opening to explain any anarchist principles. In my work today, this issue persists from the opposite side of the spectrum — an approach to anti-capitalist thought is perceived as inadequate if it does not reference Marxists. Either theorizing critically about capitalism is too communistic, or not communistic enough. Clearly, the discussion is still not as clear-cut as I assume it to be, so I decided to cut through it, specifically as it relates to publishing. The issue of division of labor was discussed in print (and about print) throughout much of the 19th century, and is still a relevant discussion today. In removing the distinction between producing and authoring, we remove (to the best of our abilities) the capitalist division of labor. This rationale comes from the idea that industrialized mass production, as a tool for maximum profit within an expanding capitalist system, has the self-production of goods as its antithesis. To do-it-yourself is, therefore, not only an anti-capitalist statement but also a tool to address alienation. In this sense, DIY zines are not utopic objects made 100% by hand. These are publications which can be created at home, without industrial grade machinery. Which means, they do not set out to be identical, profitable, or printed and distributed in a corporate scale. Even though it is impossible to live completely outside this current industrial/economic system, an imperfect attempt to do something yourself is enough to raise a critical consciousness around how this paradigm is made to be alienating and inescapable. Now, “alienation” and “division of labor” sound like Marxist jargon, and many anti-capitalist theorists do use them as such. I do not. Alienation in a Hegelian sense is not something experienced specifically by the proletariat in capitalism, it is part of an existential process which makes us human. Let’s not get into who qualified as human under Hegel’s unhinged German-centricness, but let’s highlight that the word within the Hegelian framework is an unavoidable step towards liberation, rather than a specific abusive practice by the bourgeoisie. “[T]he self that has an absolute significance in its immediate existence, i.e. without having alienated itself from itself, is without substance, and is the plaything of those raging elements.” (Phenomenology of the Spirit, pp. 295) When it comes to ‘division of labor’ as a particular source of alienation, Tocqueville had noticed it of the United States and written about it in the mid 1830s: “In proportion as the principle of the division of labor is more extensively applied, the workman becomes more weak, more narrow-minded, and more dependent.” (Democracy in America, pp. 627) Through the brazen frenchness of his writing, critical snippets of this emerging economic paradigm can be seen — capitalism as a paradigm shift rather than an improvement from aristocracy. This division of labor as it pertains to art and authoring is discussed in more detail in the book What Is Art, where Tolstoy exclaims: “the laborers produce food for themselves and also food that the cultured class accept and consume, but that the artists seem too often to produce their spiritual food for the cultured only — at any rate that a singularly small share seems to reach the country laborers who work to supply the bodily food!” (1897). This anti-capitalist approach towards art and publishing through doing away with borders between classes and their labor is further highlighted by Lucy Parsons, who invites her readers to “make of [a newspaper] what [they] choose” (1905, Salutation), and that freedom will only come to be “when labor is no longer for sale” (1905, What Freedom Means). The list of political theorists throughout the 19th century which occupied themselves with discussing the problems of capitalism might be longer than the list of those who did not. Marx was one who provided a detailed framework, but there were other methods and approaches to dealing with capitalism being discussed by a whole era of thinkers. None of them were perfect, and few of those registered were as detailed as Marx’s, but the absence of perfection and details does not mean worthlessness. Anarchism, in particular, proposes something other than resorting to the imposition or enforcement of guidelines. In fact, this is what Lenin described as the “historical sin of Tolstoyism!” — Tolstoy’s disinterest in ruling was seen as a rejection of politics. As a novelist, however, his passion for subverting the arbitrary morality and norms of the aristocracy was far from apolitical; his method was moving hearts and minds through literature, and I would argue that Lenin not only learned from that, but took advantage of what Tolstoy achieved in Russian society through his work. Anarchist anti-capitalist publishing is a legacy, a valuable resource passed on through generations, for approaching persistent global socioeconomic issues. Anarchist anti-capitalist writing has the power to form an undercurrent of public discourse which renders authority and force obsolete. Originally published at abeautifulresistance.org _______ MIRNA WABI-SABI is a writer, editor and translator. She is founder and editor-in-chief of the Plataforma9 initiative, author of the bilingual pocket book Anarcho-Transcreation, and site editor of Gods and Radicals.

Do you remember the first time you signed a document? I ask when, not if, because chances are you have signed something, and others have signed something about you. A signed birth certificate, for instance, is likely a person’s 1st legal document, making all future identification documents possible — passports, social security numbers, employment and health care contracts, etc. The signature is so commonplace that we might take it for granted or believe it has always existed, but it hasn’t. Historically, signatures and official seals belonged to a privileged ruling class. It wasn’t until the 1600s that handwritten signatures became widespread, not coincidently at a time when indigenous peoples were being coerced into signing treaties that gave away their land. The Government and its laws not only instate but require of all people a judicial practice of signatures as “biomarkers”. Historically, laws regarding signatures date back to the oldest recorded piece of legal text, the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, from 17th century BC. “If any one give another silver, gold, or anything else to keep, he shall show everything to some witness, draw up a contract, and then hand it over for safe keeping” (Source). Essentially, the principle of validating contracts was about safeguarding the transfer of wealth, and this witness validation became what we today call notaries. This code directly influenced the Old Testament, Moses’ tablets of stone, and all laws developed within Christendom. What is set in stone, however, isn’t necessarily effective or applicable. Throughout colonization, the inclusion of non-Christians into this framework is in itself telling of the unequal dynamic between colonizer and colonized, not to mention what the treaties resulting from this framework entailed. These treaties were not applicable to the context of land distribution of indigenous peoples, and they were not effective because they did not prevent fraud, social injustice or unrest. It would be fair to say that the US American occupation of indigenous American land was war-like, and called for a judicial system which — as it guaranteed “Liberty” to some, it guaranteed the denial of liberty to others. The so-called “Grand Rush for Indian Territory” counted on the signatures of indigenous American leaders on treaties forged under contentious circumstances. It granted settlers what it denied natives, through a system not only foreign to natives, but manufactured to displace and segregate them. Indigenous peoples did not have signatures as such, and up to that point it was also unusual for the common citizen to have one. Which is why so many of the signatures in these treaties are scribbles, drawings or x-marks. “As everyone knows, treaties were made under conditions that were generally unfavorable to Indians, and as a result they were often accompanied by protest. Treaties led to dramatic changes in the Indian world: loss of land and political autonomy, assent to assimilation polices […]” (Scott Richard Lyons in X-Marks: Native Signatures of Assent (2010), University of Minnesota Press, pp. 1) Legally, a signature is invalidated if it happened under duress. The Latin term vi coactus, when placed next to a signature, shows that there was coercion in the process. Alongside the practice of signing, the Latin signifier was also foreign to natives. Defining duress legally in the context of the west coast of North America in the 17th century, however, requires a decolonial lens. Not only many treaties were signed in the context of armed conflict or economic coercion, communities were often not given what they were promised in return: sovereignty over their new territories. For that, there is also a Latin term (first documented in 1603) — nudum pactum, when a contract is unenforceable and revokable because it lacks something of value promised in exchange. Descriptions of colony/colonizer relations are rarely capable of avoiding the issue of imbalance of power. However, this imbalance is not always understood as unfair, or as a source of duress for the so-called weaker party. Recent international law analyses still describe the legal process of independence from colonizers in patronizing tones, as is the case in this passage from an article published in the Questions of International Law journal in 2019: "The world of sovereign states could be compared to the adult world, whereas the world of decolonization could be understood as the world of child-parent relations. […] Not only is the colonial country a weaker party in any agreement with the administering power on a factual basis, it is also formally (legally) unequal. Article 73 of the UN Charter recognizes its vulnerable position and offers special protection until the colonial country achieves ‘adulthood’ – ie a full measure of self-government either by becoming independent or freely associating or integrating with an independent state". (Demsar et al.) A centuries long attempt to justify the imbalance of power between colony and colonizer is tied to the enduring sentiments that there is such a thing as the categories 1st and 3rd worlds or developed and underdeveloped countries. The rationale behind acknowledging this inequality but not its unjust or distressing quality is possibly the single most effective tool in guaranteeing the longevity of a colonial paradigm. Sylvia Wynter (2003) describes this rationale as “the ongoing imperative of securing the well-being of our present ethnoclass (i.e., Western bourgeois) conception of the human, Man, which overrepresents itself as if it were the human itself.” This conception of the human has been materialized in the deliberate instating of signatures as biomarkers and the documents they validate as proof of personhood. In the digitalized era, proof of personhood (PoP) has taken a specific meaning relating to fake online identities. Alongside the conceptualization of PoP, the signature has also taken a new meaning through private keys, encryption and IP-addresses. This poses a silent threat to those who, for instance, have their mail-in ballots rejected because of mismatched signatures, or resist the push towards being ultra-connected through accepting all terms and conditions without reading. In Brazil, personhood being progressively more tied to the digital sphere poses a threat to indigenous people in particular. Not because indigenous peoples don’t have or want access to technology per se, but because there is a persistent undercurrent of colonial thought which strips natives of their identity if they strive for or are forced to engage with any tool perceived as of Western modernity. It’s the familiar (trigger warning: racist language) “you can’t be a real indian if you have phone” or “if you want your land back, you have to go live naked in the forest.” The colonial weapons used by settlers were not only firearms and disease. Epistemological assaults were even more commonplace, and persist to this day. Law as an epistemological and religious tool, and specifically the use of signatures in the legal process, are not any less pervasive today and victimize a much wider range of marginalized populations, such as the poor and diasporic. Signatures as proof of personhood is an existential threat, both philosophically and materially, to those furthest away from the status of power, wealth and whiteness. We may not be able to refrain from the practice of signatures, but we can at least be critical of the political paradigm which makes this practice unavoidable. In doing so, we are less likely to fall for the lies often told about the democratic and just nature of the Rule of Law. Originally published at abeautifulresistance.org _______ MIRNA WABI-SABI is a writer, editor and translator. She is founder and editor-in-chief of the Plataforma9 initiative, author of the bilingual pocket book Anarcho-Transcreation, and site editor of Gods and Radicals.

As a concept, ‘Natural Capital’ is contrary to what environmentalists have been trying to achieve for decades, and it is also contrary to the nature of capital. What is natural for capitalism is maximum profits, not minimum damage. For decades, the commodification of nature and agriculture to the detriment of the planet and population — be it of humans, animals or plants — has been criticized by the scientific community and society at large. Rampant deforestation threatens all life on earth, and most damage done to ecosystems in Brazil, the most biodiverse region in the world, is due to industries that are not aimed at immediate human needs such as food and clean water. Instead, they are directed at fuel, cattle feed, oils and so on — all of which intensely rely on pesticides. “[T]he land, this common good, meets the demand of capital, but it does not meet the human demand.” (Bombardi, 2017) Arguably, agriculture can be a natural process, but the industrialization of it, particularly through the use of dangerous pesticides, are harder to perceive as such. Researcher Larissa Bombardi argues that the conversion of food production into ‘commodities’ is done through “the massive use of pesticides” (2017). Meanwhile, “Brazil has been the world’s largest consumer of pesticides since 2008”; its “consumption has increased by 190% in the last decade” (N. M. X. Faria et al., 2014). The “30 million hectares” used — or deforested — for soybean cultivation in Brazil are the destination of more than half (52%) of the “pesticides sold in the country” (Bombardi, 2017). When considering that this soy is transgenic in its overwhelming majority (95.5%) (Bombardi, 2017, p.35) and “its main role in the food industry is as raw material in livestock” (D. Carreira, et al., 2015), we can undoubtedly categorize it as a ‘commodity’. Therefore, as more data about the dangers of pesticides and deforestation are accumulated, one of the largest and most biodiverse countries in the world not only fails to slow down the process of commodification of natural resources but accelerates it instead. Data outlining the environmental damage and its repercussions are well known by academics and journalists, but they have not been enough to bring about significant change. Possible solutions to this unsustainable land use by the agribusiness have been tossed around among the most powerful world leaders in summits, treaties have been forged, signed and promoted. But time and time again, we see ourselves moving faster and faster towards the obliteration of natural ecosystems across the globe. Written by Mirna Wabi-Sabi Read it in full at Abeautifulresistance.org