On the anti-fascist Germans in Poland and a few other things

Just one more article (following the last one) about last Friday's events (EDIT: alright, I have one more, which I'll probably do next week.)

Those dangerous anti-fascists in Warsaw

You've heard about those anti-fascist Germans who came to Poland to confront the far-right?  Well I was with some of them.  I know what they did.  You see this attack?  (You must have.  The mainstream media has been full of it.  Alert as they are to right-wing violence.)

The Germans were there!  I saw them.  I spoke with them, before, during and after the "equivalent to the far-left" went past.  You know what they did?  What dastardly action they did?  They backed away to escape the fire torches being thrown at us.  The violent, coming-to-Poland-to-start-fights bastards!  If you don't believe me (and understand German), read this article of German terror!

Some, for some evil reason didn't join with the continued (and enabled by the police, left-wing violence fans) march of the anti-fascists.  I spoke with those that did come with us.  We laughed about having such a peaceful time in Poland.

 Probably not a German, but I can do with a nice picture here

Oh, you didn't want to hear about them

Alright, the other Germans.  Let's move away from Wrocław, then.

To tell the truth, my Polish isn't the best.  I can understand the general gist of articles in Polish, but my head starts to spin after a while, so I am reliant upon Google translations; which only adds to the lack of comprehension of what happened.  Anyway, here is a report about those dastardly Germans and now follows the aforementioned translation:

German anti-fascists argue that it did not take part in riots on 11 November. - As we all know, the riots began around 14.00-15.00, and ended around 17.00. While all the German group has already been stopped at 12.00, so you do not have the opportunity to take part in riots - said the representative. [...] Representatives of anti-fascists of Germany said that at the time of arrest were not allowed to contact a lawyer and an interpreter was not provided for 32 hours to stop not given food or drink.

At. 15.00, where we were detained for a long time at the police station, 8 thousand. neo-fascists in the city center was beating people, the police beat and devastated city - he said.

Today, when I was released, I read in the German media and learn from the Polish media that we have a responsibility for the escalation of violence in the city center. How is it possible that people who were trapped three hours earlier could devastate the city center? 

As pointed out Representative Agreement on November 11 , German participation in the events was negligible, because most of them were released after detention without charges, and charges against some of them are not very significant.

And there's more, from here:

"... allegations were presented to us. Translator was unable to translate them, twice translated it wrong. I said that I do not want to participate in this circus, I tried to leave, he demanded a lawyer. We wanted to grab the phone, twisted our hands. Translator said he did not want to further explain. The situation escalated, officers with the interpreter began to challenge us. (...) We were in a room with five girls, the officers sang "Deutschland uber alles Deutschland" and other racist song. K. mocked that she burst into tears after the hearing, and that at first glance might be considered a man. (...) In the morning we asked for food and warm drinks, but we received nothing. It was cold, the windows were still open. "

"... Circle 0:30, when it became clear that on that day no longer get out to freedom, our cries for water became louder. In response, called for more police officers in full riot gear battle. Until the end of steel over our heads, playing with guns, throwing gas and making sarcastic remarks. Peter was Head of the floor leading to the people in the chicanes. We are constantly walking through the floor yelling, preaching to get up and sit down, etc. .. Seven of us were taken to a place resembling a drunk tank chamber (tiles on the walls, etc.). They gave us to sign the Charter of Rights was written in German, in which the speech was enjoyed by us about the right to an interpreter - this place was not. We had to strip naked and do squats and then we were thrown into the cell. In the morning (after 17 hours) we got breakfast and confined us again in the cell. " 

So, the claims are that Germans were in fact abused by the police, in fact, I would use the word tortured.

I daresay you've heard of that, eh?

The violence in Warsaw

There are allegations that the media is falsifying the picture of what happened on the 11th of November.  The usual 'far-left versus far-right' (with the subtext that both groups are as bad as each other) dominates the narrative (not that Poland is alone in this, though watch out for another link later in this article).

As I have said, due to the outright falsified representation of what happened in Wrocław (I know about what happened, as I was there) I have not been trusting the accounts of what has happened in Warsaw.

I gather that this is what happened: 

Starting at 9 am nearly one hundred and fifty right-wing thugs with sticks in their hands circling the pl. Three Crosses in search of victims. Around 11:30 another group of people walking nationalists attacked the New World, but you put a resolute resistance. Police enters into action. This leads to the first arrests neo-fascists, while the anti-fascists are pushed to the premises of Political Critics, the Coalition of Agreement.

So legally, and anti-fascist Independent Colored Lock are constantly attacked by a group of neo-fascists, armed with metal pipes. Burning outside broadcast van TVN, Polsat cars are destroyed and the Polish Radio, the participants of the March of Independence attack the embassy of Russia and the Belvedere.

Gathered at the Constitution Square "patriots" pull cobblestones and attack the police.

This is born out by this video, which shows the fascists attack the police (from about 4:30):

Anti-fascists were attacked on the street:

I think this type of video shows the context in which 'right against left' happened.  The far-right attacked the anti-fascists, therefore they defended themselves.  One sees no sign here of both groups going after each other.

He we see fascists attacking a left-wing shop:

Fascists also attacked a Vegan cafe:

The media said that members of 'far-left' had attacked people in Polish football shirts and also a historical enactment society.  While I don't trust the media (have you heard of any of the videos or claims given in this article?) it is possible that they happened (this may be due to a cultural misunderstanding, seriously).  Perhaps video evidence can be offered.  The organisers of the anti-fascists have spoken of 'people not attached to us' who did violent things.  Now, that may not be true.  Perhaps the fascists are saying the same.  But no, the attack on the shop shown above shows that the far-right crowd supported their actions.

Proportionally, the far-right were responsible for more violence on Friday.  This does not invalidate the seriousness of any violence done by the 'far-left', but it has to be remembered that the narrative that the 'far-left and far-right went to the parade in order to attack the other' is not true.  The far-right went there to attack the anti-fascists.


NEWS JUST IN:  It seems that one of the people allegedly 'beaten' by the Germans is the creator of a conservative-nationalist website, a website that had (before they had been quickly deleted) links to the Klu Klux Klan and Redwatch (an anti left-wing page used to help people know who they're supposing to be hitting.)  Indeed, here it is shown that Mr Rafał is a Nazi.  Hmmm.

This is also new.  Turns out that those historical enactment people actually attacked the German anti-fa, joining in with the attack that fascists had started!

AGAIN, MORE NEWS JUST IN (24th November): All violence was fascist violence (from someone who was there).

The far-left being violent

There's more

Whenever something involving violence happens there's a media panic afterwards.  People feel the need that 'something must be done'.  Politicians get caught up in this mood.  The result is never good for human rights.  We've had the Patriot Act in the US, various anti-terror legislation in GB, and so on.

Poland is not exempt from this.  I gather that there may be a ban on the covering of faces.  I covered my face in Wrocław.  The police used tear gas and I was trying to protect myself.  Also, the fascists were taking photos of us, so to avoid future bother I covered my face a bit as well and my clothes were very much not stand-outy.  Incidentally, this is one reason (and also that of police violence) why Black Blocks wear black clothes.  The banning of covering faces would be dangerous.

The banning of counter-demos is plainly undemocratic.  Also, simply having the far-right and the police would not a peaceful situation make, as the video showing them attacking the police above makes clear.

I would hope, and I would say that regardless of one's political views (i.e. I hope the same for the fascists as well) that any legal procedures would follow humane procedures with respect for the human rights of the defendants.

One thing that the state could do would be to ban flares and lit-torches.  They are weapons and were used against the left in both Warsaw and Wrocław (with no police invention in Wrocław).

If the state really means business, their representatives would come to the counter-demos on Wrocław and Warsaw next year, in order to show their commitment to democracy.

I won't hold my breath.

As Germany is finally remembering, the far-right are extremely violent.  Graffiti in Białystok and the hospitalisations of gays in Kraków are two examples of what they have done this year.  German intelligence has been massively criticised for not knowing of a Nazi-cell group in Zwickau which were responsible for the deaths of ten people over the past ten years.  Perhaps they were too busy looking at the 'far-left'.

PS The successful approach of anti-fascists in Dresden gives us some hints as to what we can do in Poland.  Look at this article.

If you wish to keep in touch with upcoming articles (on the Jewish graveyard in Oświęćim, the new modern art museum in Wrocław as well as some cool cafe, and the 'Taboos and other subjects to piss people off' series), 'like' my page on Facebook here.

Will you dance with me?

As I warned, I have little time for articles this summer.  In any case, I have very much been in the German society recently and have been influenced by events there, so have less than normal to say about life in Poland.

However, an event which happened last week has inspired this reflection on 'pair-centricism' and 'heterosexual-centrism'.

First, a brief look at the nature of living abroad (I say this in order to try to make clear that I am not anti-Polish.  Some people on the internet believe this).

Cultural conformity

A word I often hear in terms of living abroad is the German word 'anpassen'  This means both 'fitting in' and 'conforming' in English.  'Fitting in' and 'conforming' are two different ways of dealing with situations that are foreign/strange.  While the former may be less radical, it nonetheless involves a change in behaviour and outlook, a change seen as many for getting on with people from different cultures.  You learn what hidden rules they have, and you follow them.

It is assumed that I, as a trainer who tries to help people from different cultures to understand and get on with each other will advocate such an approach.  I more or less do.  The thing is, 'conforming' or 'fitting in' or not is not a black and white issue.  How one decides to deal with foreignness/strangeness is very subjective.

In looking at subjective things like perceptions of cultures one is largely making self-revelations of a sort.  To say, for example, that 'Scandinavian people are reserved' can actually mean that the message is 'I am an open person'.  One defines oneself against that which is perceived to be foreign.  Self-awarness is therefore vital to understanding other cultures.

Therefore forgive this writing about myself.  Now, if it is to be considered that I wish to conform to cultures in Poland or Germany one should ask oneself whether this heavy-metal listening, fuck you I won't do what you tell me, protesting against governments, member of a pro-LGTB group within the Anglican church, white poppy wearing, refuse/resist argumentative bastard is going to try to conform to any culture. 

Ask, though, whether I try to fit into Liverpool FC fan culture (say, by not singing woolish songs) or the Russian Orthodox church (by crossing myself and kissing icons and stuff) and I'll give you a different answer.  I, like everyone else, pick and chose when to try to fit in and when not to.  We all have our borders.  We can try to get to know them, and change them, but sometimes one finds oneself rebelling, if that is seen to be part of ones character.

That introduction out the way, let's look at pair-centrisim and heterosexual-centrism in Poland.

Will you dance with me?

There have been a few occasions where I have been quite lost at discos.  There has been some good music (and I don't mean slow romantic songs) and I wanted to dance, but everyone, and I mean everyone who is dancing is in a male-female pair.  I sit there, thinking 'Should I ask a girl to dance?'  or 'Am I offending some girl by not asking her to dance'?  and getting frustrated that if I was to get up and dance alone I would be stared at.

It's all about perspective.  Let's try to understand them:

The individualist approach

Here I am, banging my head to Motörhead.  It's cool to dance with others, but ultimately I will do it on my own on a dance floor if needs me.  I see fun as something I can have my myself.  While I can prefer dancing with others, it is the music and my reaction to it that is more important.

The collectivist-centrist approach

Music is fun.  I like to dance with my friends.  I get bored dancing on my own.  I want to share the experience and sing and whatever with them.  I don't really need to love the music.

The pair-centrist approach

Dancing is an activity for couples.  The point of music is to enjoy music with a member of the opposite sex.  Perhaps I shall end up being romantically involved with this person, or perhaps not.  It is not important.  The society exists so that men and women can try each other out to see whether they want to be with them.  That is how we are made to be.  A man and woman shows respect to each other by dancing with them.

Between these approaches can lie misunderstandings.  The individualist can be seen as closed, the collectivist as dependent on others (these both aspects demonstrate the introverted/extraverted dynamic).  It is the pair-centrist approach where big misunderstandings can take place.  A request by a man towards a girl to dance with him can be seen as flirtatious, when in fact nothing is meant like that.

I struggle with the pair-centrist approach.  I've been to weddings in Poland and that the music was utterly shite did not matter a jot to the other guests, as they were more interested in having fun with other people and meeting new men and women.  For me the music is the most important thing.  There's nothing I like more than a good moshpit, but I can quite happily dance on my own.  Dancing can be done for enjoyment, not just for the narrow scope of couples.

Heterosexual-centrism, gender roles and a fear of male sexuality

There's another subtext to this.  I have asked men to dance with me and have been emotionally rejected.  Nothing really bad for me, but I am convinced that a heterosexual-centrism lies behind pair-centrism: One can only dance with a member of the opposite sex.

Now, while in this model lads will dance with lasses, girls dancing with other girls appears to be more accepted.  That does not disprove my argument, rather, it proves it.  One of the girls can play the 'male' role.  That is allowed.  We all know it does not mean that the girl can be lesbian as showings of affection between women is more socially accepted than that between men.  Affection is seen to be 'female', therefore it is 'OK'.

A male (and I say this about men in different countries) faces pressure not to be seen as being gay.  Any hint of being gay, such as dancing with another man is to be feared.  That one does not want to be seen as being gay makes sense from the perspective of wanting to display ones openness to women on one side, but on the other side is a form of homophobia: 'I do not want people to consider me to be gay as being gay is a bad thing'.

Of course, being thought to be or being gay will produce discrimination.  On the other hand, a fear of being perceived to be gay can also be a form of homophobia, 'What?!  Me?  Gay?  Fuck off!'.  A homophobia rooted in fear of themselves resulting from a lack of awareness of themselves.

This largely affects men.  Both men and women are more accepting of lesbians than of gays.  It is more OK for a girl to be either girly or masculine than the other way around.  Men are under more pressure to be masculine, which is why this becomes OTT in some cases.

Now, when I say 'sexuality' I don't just mean 'the sex who one wants to have sex with'.  Sexuality is much more than sex, it is also about how one shows ones own sex.  It can involve the wearing of make-up, playing sport, or whatever.  It can also involve the enjoyment of the company with people who share ones sex.

(Generalised statement alert): I believe that men generally like physical contact with other men.  They may not always admit it to themselves, but if you find them on a football terrace, in a concert or when they are drunk you will find them enjoying that physical contact with other men.  This is not true of all men, of course.  Look at men in Turkey, walking arm in arm with each other.  No bother there.  No, heterosexual man are very much capable of enjoying physical contact with other men.

The problems arises when men do not admit this to themselves.  Any such a liking or desire can be seen to themselves as proof that they are gay.  This shows a lack of confidence in ones own sexuality, like they haven't proofed to themselves whether they are heterosexual.  Ironically, this does not show strength (something a 'real man' should aspire to), it shows weakness.  It is as if they are scared of liking being close to the other male.

This is what I mean by fear, fear of ones own sexuality.  They are not in touch with their own maleness (Our societies don't help us, it has to be said.  Thank God for initiatives like International Men's Day.)

This fear can then be projected onto others, largely actual gays.  They become the scapegoat of that part of us that we fear, by which I mean both that part of us that likes physical contact with other men, or for some that part that is sexually attracted to other men.  Surely it'd be more 'manly' to be comfortable in ones sexuality, no fear?

Let's not let the girls off

Women propound this as much as men.  While some may desire a more 'open' man, they will also show an aversion to male-male physical contact.  This may take the form of jokes or pulled faces.  They may gossip about 'which man is gay' if he behaves a bit differently, a gossip rooted in the question of whether this man is open towards girls or not, but is also rooted in fixed gender roles.

It is these fixed gender roles which harm women as much as anyone.

Anyway, hopefully by this time next week I'll be seeing one of the best bands of history: Judas Priest, in Spodek in Katowice.

That their singer, Rob Halford is gay is well-known.  So, in a purely heavy metal spirit you may find me ignoring the cultural rule of 'You can't dance with me', or rather acknowledging it and then ramming it down.