Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
The Waterbearers
Camille Billops
This excerpt from the Waterbearers by Sasha Bonét tells part of the story of artist and filmmaker Camille Billops. Told as a series of “tributaries”, the Waterbearers is a transformative work of American storytelling that reimagines not just how we think of Black women, but how we think of ourselves—as individuals, parents, communities, and a country. Published September 2025 by Penguin Random House.
Tributary #88
I
In 1961 at six o’clock on a spring morning in Los Angeles a group of Black women convene at the middle-class home of the family matriarch. There was probably tea and hushed whispers so as to not wake the child who rested in the next room. With all of their morning responsibilities abandoned and hair still tied back in rollers beneath silk scarves, they’ve gathered to convince one member of their tribe not to give her four-year-old child up for adoption. As they heard a car door shut in the driveway, one of the women peeped through the closed curtains to confirm the arrival of the member in question. Twenty-seven-year-old single mother Camille Billops entered, stoic and searching for her daughter, Christa Victoria. If, in fact, she housed any shame or doubt inside of her, there was no evidence of this on Camille’s being. The women—her mother, her mother’s sisters, and a few cousins—all made dibs on the child, as if she were up for auction. The strongest offers were that of Camille’s sister Billie and her mother, Alma, who had raised the child up until this point while Camille studied art and childhood education for physically handicapped children at Los Angeles State College at night and worked at the local bank during the day. Alma, too old and too tired, and Billie, married to a man whom Camille was suspicious of being unpredictable and unfit. “I’m going to take her. She’s mine,” Camille said, “and there’s nothing any of you can do about it.” Known for her smart mouth and uncompromising nature, Camille woke Christa up and walked her to the black Volkswagen Beetle and drove directly to the Children’s Home Society of California. She let go of Christa’s hand and told her to go to the bathroom; when Christa returned, searching for her mother, she looked out of the window, grasping her small teddy bear, and watched the black Bug drive away.
Camille had met Christa’s father, Stanford, through a mutual friend and their brief yet intense courtship ended abruptly. Stanford, a tall striking lieutenant in the US Air Force was stationed in California. A few months into their relationship Camille was pregnant, despite her realization at the age of ten that she didn’t want to be a mother, but abortions weren’t legal in California until 1969. If they were going to do this, they had to do it traditionally, and Stanford consented. Five hundred shotgun-wedding invitations went out and before the guests received them by mail, he was gone. Camille called around searching for him and the Air Force informed her of his military discharge. When Christa was born on December 12, 1956, Camille received a postcard, “Wishing you well, Love Stanford,” with no return address. He continued these cruel communications for years until he mistakenly wrote his return address; he was living in New York City on Pitt Street. With three-year-old Christa on her hip, Camille booked a flight across the country and sat on the stoop waiting for him to arrive home. Stanford pulled up in a Cadillac convertible, wearing sunglasses and a slight smile. He greeted them like old friends. Invited them in for beverages and shortly after showed them to the door, wishing them both all the best. Camille never saw him again. Christa reunited with this stranger three decades later and asked him if he was her father, and he replied, “I suppose so,” to which she said, “I’m glad we got that squared away.”
II
Was it in this moment that Camille decided to abandon motherhood? Or was it many moments that led to her dropping Christa off and speeding away? Christa, along with Camille’s family, believe it was an affair she was having with a White man named James Hatch. Her stepsister Josie was his student at UCLA in the theater department in 1959, and she introduced Camille and Jim. Knowing that Camille was single, she said, “He’s ready.” Camille was teaching then in the public school system and making ceramics at home. She asked Hatch to come over and take a look at her pots and he asked her to audition for a play he cowrote with UCLA colleague C. Bernard Jackson inspired by the Greensboro, North Carolina, student sit-ins, Fly Blackbird. She was never quite as good at acting as she had hoped and was selected for the chorus, but she was onstage at the Metropolitan Theater in LA. Jim was the first person to tell Camille she was a good artist. “I will always love him for that,” she says. His support provided her with permission to be whoever she pleased in any given moment, even if that meant not being pretty, what her family said a woman must be at all costs. This introduced Camille to a new way of being. A world of artists and activists, organized by the American Civil Liberties Union, who began protesting school segregation and Black oppression. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, Camille was the mistress of a White man who believed in her, and despite Los Angeles being on the precipice of the Watts Uprising, she was not deterred by the vile language and glares thrown at them by strangers. Camille began slowly shedding the cultural influences of middle-class Black America. Her parents had come to California during the Great Migration, like many Southern Blacks who moved west in search of opportunity and the possibility of providing their family with security from the violence inflicted on Black bodies. In LA they worked in service to White folks, therefore it wasn’t necessarily work that they couldn’t attain in the South, it was their dignity. Her father, Luscious, from Texas, was a cook and her mother, Alma, from South Carolina, was a domestic and seamstress. However, escaping the South in physicality doesn’t remove the emotional traumas of being Black in America; their White ideals were held firmly intact and their Southern traditions folded neatly within. Whiteness was still seen as superior in eloquence and refinement and the Billopses would emulate this in their home, for appearances’ sake, but when the burlap curtains closed at night, Luscious drank like a fish until he passed out and his wife carried him to bed each night. Alma bestowed these beliefs of Black female servitude on her two daughters, and they consented, but the youngest child will always rebel, and for Camille, Jim was the catalyst. She had been taught that motherhood and womanhood were inextricable. If you were not a mother, then what would you be? Mother is to be a woman’s highest title, and anything that takes precedence, even your own dream, is deemed selfish. Images of Camille with baby Christa show a polished and respectable young lady with permed hair and slicked-down edges. But in the images with Jim, you can see the physical transformation. She cuts off her permed roller set curls and has a small perfectly picked Afro. The hairs along her top lip thicken and grow wildly, untamed. Camille preferred to be called artist, not mama. She had never allowed Christa to call her Mama, she was to call her Bootsie, like all of her closest friends and family. Jim also suspected that Camille was giving up Christa for him and offered just enough discouragement to absolve himself of responsibility, “Don’t give Christa up for me.” When Jim was offered a Fulbright appointment to teach at the High Institute of Cinema in Cairo, Egypt, the center of the 1960s Pan-African movement that brought over many young American artists and activists like Maya Angelou and Malcolm X, he asked Camille to come visit before his wife and kids arrived, and without hesitation she went. But before departing Cairo, she told him she would not return unless he left his wife and children. “He met me at the airport and his wife left,” she says, “we chose each other and entered into another life. That’s when the world opened.”
In Cairo, Camille began experimenting with sculpture and her first solo exhibition at Gallerie Akhenaton was a small collection of ceramic pots and sculptures of those close to her, like Jim, who would serve as her constant muse, benefactor, and advocate. Their intimacy and artistry were to always exist intertwined given the racially charged political unrest that they protested in their life and through their creations. They dared to love each other in a time when interracial relationships were still considered criminal in the United States. Their first collaboration was a book of poetry called Poems for Niggers and Crackers, published in Cairo in 1965, with poems written by Jim and American poet Ibrahim Ibn Ismail; Camille created the illustrations. Driven by all that she had sacrificed, Camille explored any medium she could get her hands on, photography, painting, printmaking, and eventually film, which would be her most critically acclaimed work. She spent many years creating and showing work in Egypt, Germany, and China before returning to her homeland after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, to find her own countrymen not so welcoming to Black women artists. They settled into New York City’s East Village where the Armenian American English professor and author Leo Hamalian helped Jim secure a teaching position in theater at City College while Camille taught ceramics there. As with all great artists, there comes a time when you must turn inward and begin dissecting yourself, to become the subject of your own examination. This led Camille into filmmaking.
III
Camille tells me:
“I was with all of the various Nigga bitches. Emma Amos, Faith Ringgold, Elizabeth Catlett. They had Black night at museums like the Whitney where they would let us in the building but not show our work. We were fighting so hard to get into the Brooklyn Museum and they wouldn’t let us in. So we said, well fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I said, you know what, I’m making my own way. So we bought this big-ass loft a long time ago when it was cheap. I told Jim, why don’t we buy a loft, and we did it. Jim had most of the money. I had a little something to contribute. I told him I wanted my name on it, and he said okay, so we got married. We are all we have. I would have never ended up being a working artist if it weren’t for him. His favorite words were ‘Why not?’ and ‘Yes you can.’ We created a library space, a studio in the back, an archive, and the dining area is where we host salons for our publication Artist and Influence. Every Black artist of our time has sat right here in this living room, and we recorded it all—bell hooks, Julie Dash, Amiri Baraka, all the Niggas. We invited everybody here: friends, students, and White gallerists and curators. We sold art right off our walls. I stopped begging a long time ago when I discovered I could sell art without having to kiss booty. These alternatives made it possible. Bob Blackburn was very helpful, he taught me printmaking. There were many artists that I met at the print shop while I was working, like Romi [Romare Bearden]. This is what you do when people don’t let you into their playground. We did it out of defiance. I always did whatever I wanted to do.
“In the early ’80s Christa found me. It was a great shock to me. She sent a letter and a cassette tape with a song, asking me if I would see her. She was twenty-something. I was scared because I had already learned how to live with my guilt about giving her up. I wasn’t trying to come out from beneath the water. I was never a very good mother. I did what was best for both of us. I was twenty-three and I hardly saw her when she was little, she was always with my sister Billie or my mama. Mothers are supposed to protect, and the only way I could do that was by giving her up. I didn’t see this as feminist then, I just knew I wanted to reverse it, I wanted to be free of motherhood. I agreed to meet with her. Jim really liked her, and they got on. Naturally, she was an artist like me, it’s in her blood. When I started making films, she helped us. You can hear her voice singing on the opening scene of Suzanne, Suzanne about my niece’s drug addiction and her abusive father. People wasn’t talking about domestic violence back then. Our films had a tendency toward dirty laundry, they say it like it is, not like it’s supposed to be. It was hard enough being Black so everyone wanted to appear perfect, keep up appearances, you know. My sister wanted to take Christa but I didn’t trust my brother-in-law, Suzanne’s father. Her adopted mother, Margaret, was fabulous, a jazz singer. She was the little ship that helped me sail the dangerous night. Then we made the film Finding Christa. Christa stayed here with us for a while when we were making the film and then she moved to New York to study, so I could help her become a singer. We were always fighting because she wanted me to feel guilty. She kept asking me why I gave her away. It was always verbally violent, and guilt-ridden. I was all kinds of bitches to her. She wasn’t easy. I tried to explain to her that I didn’t want to be a mother. But it was complicated. Jim says we were too much alike. She’s a Sagittarius and I’m a Leo, too much fire. She was a star in Finding Christa. People say I show no remorse in the film, they say I’m cold, but if I had to do it again I would. I know I made the right decision, wouldn’t change a thing. Well, the only thing I would do differently would be to give her up earlier. But it was hard. Her father disappearing on me was a gift, otherwise if he had stayed, I would have just endured, that’s what Black women did in my family, endured. Christa was a very good actress, and this was a part of our competitiveness. She took up space in a way that was threatening to me. This caused a big friction when she was staying with us. Adoptees have what they call ‘the great wound,’ and it would always come back to, ‘Why did you throw me away?’ She would come and stay here and see everything that we have built and turn to me and ask, ‘Why wasn’t I here? Why wasn’t I a part of this?’ Jim welcomed her with open arms. But I didn’t like her taking up so much space here. I would correct her and let her know, ‘This ain’t your place. You don’t own this.’ She was even beginning to claim the film, saying it was her film. I said, ‘Now wait a minute, you didn’t shoot that film. I shot that film. I cut that film.’ She wanted to be a filmmaker but want and spit are two different things. Yeah, so I suppose there was some essence of competitiveness. She was difficult, I was difficult. We had an argument and then she walked out one day. Then one day she returned. It didn’t last. It became argumentative again. Then she left again in 2013. We didn’t talk again. I let it go. She had become ill and had to have an operation. Then she needed another one and she said she wouldn’t have it. She killed herself by not taking that operation. I wasn’t invited to the funeral. When she died somebody called to tell me. Who was it that called me? I don’t remember. It was early in the morning. Like a blast from the furnace. You have to stand very still and face it. Then I had to bury it. Jim and I both. And that was it. It has to have a place. I’ve accepted the guilt. I will carry it with me forever. Sometimes I feel her when I am working.”
IV
Before Christa’s death she shared a letter on her Facebook page in 2014 titled “Given up Twice—Is It All Worth It?” In the letter she speaks about calling her stepfather, Jim, on Father’s Day 2013 and Camille also picking up a receiver in a different room and abruptly hanging up when Christa announced herself. Half an hour after the call Christa receives an email from Jim stating that she should never call or visit their home again. Christa suspects that this email was written by Camille, as it contains a “callous” brashness that isn’t indicative of Jim’s character toward her. The email stated that both Jim and Camille were “cutting all communications” with her, including “telephone, letters, on the internet and personal appearances on the tai chi court,” as she was causing too many disruptions in their lives. The email was signed by Jim and sent from his account, but the statement “four-year-old child continues to protest her mother’s decision for giving her up” were words that she had heard endlessly from her biological mother. Christa never spoke to Camille again, but after seeing a therapist, she concluded that Camille was uncomfortable with Christa’s intimate relationship with Jim. Thirty-two years after reuniting, Christa was dismissed. This three-thousand-word letter is filled with discreet anger, confusion, hurt that reads like a muffled scream into the abyss of social media. She signed the letter, “Christa Victoria (my name since birth).”
In the film Finding Christa, which won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance, making Camille the first Black woman producer/director to be awarded this prize, Christa says that she felt like an octopus, wanting to extend all parts of herself around the woman who birthed her, but Camille felt like a cactus, sharp and defensive. Christa also states that meeting her birth mother and biological family saved her life, but one may consider their final split to be the event that led to her demise. Camille challenged assumptions about what a Black middle-class woman had to be and chose her artistry above all else; despite her family’s beliefs that she chose Jim, she was choosing herself. To assume that Camille prioritized her relationship with her life partner seems misplaced and in contradiction to her radical act, which was to choose herself even when everything around her said that her purpose was to serve, soothe, and comfort, a rejection to the concept of Mammy.
Camille’s genius lay in her ability to imagine Black futures in a country that did not value Black life and the expression of that life through art. Before Roe v. Wade, before the Loving v. Virginia ruling, she made decisions that seemed improbable.
The future that Camille envisioned was one that benefited the well-being and advancement of not just one individual being that she birthed but an entire generation of artists and scholars who were nourished by her contributions as an artist and archivist. Christa, unfortunately, was a casualty in Camille’s ambitious defiance.

{
"article":
{
"title" : "The Waterbearers: Camille Billops",
"author" : "Sasha Bonét",
"category" : "excerpts",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-waterbearers-camille-billops",
"date" : "2025-09-08 10:04:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Camille-and-Christa.jpg",
"excerpt" : "This excerpt from the Waterbearers by Sasha Bonét tells part of the story of artist and filmmaker Camille Billops. Told as a series of “tributaries”, the Waterbearers is a transformative work of American storytelling that reimagines not just how we think of Black women, but how we think of ourselves—as individuals, parents, communities, and a country. Published September 2025 by Penguin Random House.",
"content" : "This excerpt from the Waterbearers by Sasha Bonét tells part of the story of artist and filmmaker Camille Billops. Told as a series of “tributaries”, the Waterbearers is a transformative work of American storytelling that reimagines not just how we think of Black women, but how we think of ourselves—as individuals, parents, communities, and a country. Published September 2025 by Penguin Random House.Tributary #88IIn 1961 at six o’clock on a spring morning in Los Angeles a group of Black women convene at the middle-class home of the family matriarch. There was probably tea and hushed whispers so as to not wake the child who rested in the next room. With all of their morning responsibilities abandoned and hair still tied back in rollers beneath silk scarves, they’ve gathered to convince one member of their tribe not to give her four-year-old child up for adoption. As they heard a car door shut in the driveway, one of the women peeped through the closed curtains to confirm the arrival of the member in question. Twenty-seven-year-old single mother Camille Billops entered, stoic and searching for her daughter, Christa Victoria. If, in fact, she housed any shame or doubt inside of her, there was no evidence of this on Camille’s being. The women—her mother, her mother’s sisters, and a few cousins—all made dibs on the child, as if she were up for auction. The strongest offers were that of Camille’s sister Billie and her mother, Alma, who had raised the child up until this point while Camille studied art and childhood education for physically handicapped children at Los Angeles State College at night and worked at the local bank during the day. Alma, too old and too tired, and Billie, married to a man whom Camille was suspicious of being unpredictable and unfit. “I’m going to take her. She’s mine,” Camille said, “and there’s nothing any of you can do about it.” Known for her smart mouth and uncompromising nature, Camille woke Christa up and walked her to the black Volkswagen Beetle and drove directly to the Children’s Home Society of California. She let go of Christa’s hand and told her to go to the bathroom; when Christa returned, searching for her mother, she looked out of the window, grasping her small teddy bear, and watched the black Bug drive away.Camille had met Christa’s father, Stanford, through a mutual friend and their brief yet intense courtship ended abruptly. Stanford, a tall striking lieutenant in the US Air Force was stationed in California. A few months into their relationship Camille was pregnant, despite her realization at the age of ten that she didn’t want to be a mother, but abortions weren’t legal in California until 1969. If they were going to do this, they had to do it traditionally, and Stanford consented. Five hundred shotgun-wedding invitations went out and before the guests received them by mail, he was gone. Camille called around searching for him and the Air Force informed her of his military discharge. When Christa was born on December 12, 1956, Camille received a postcard, “Wishing you well, Love Stanford,” with no return address. He continued these cruel communications for years until he mistakenly wrote his return address; he was living in New York City on Pitt Street. With three-year-old Christa on her hip, Camille booked a flight across the country and sat on the stoop waiting for him to arrive home. Stanford pulled up in a Cadillac convertible, wearing sunglasses and a slight smile. He greeted them like old friends. Invited them in for beverages and shortly after showed them to the door, wishing them both all the best. Camille never saw him again. Christa reunited with this stranger three decades later and asked him if he was her father, and he replied, “I suppose so,” to which she said, “I’m glad we got that squared away.”IIWas it in this moment that Camille decided to abandon motherhood? Or was it many moments that led to her dropping Christa off and speeding away? Christa, along with Camille’s family, believe it was an affair she was having with a White man named James Hatch. Her stepsister Josie was his student at UCLA in the theater department in 1959, and she introduced Camille and Jim. Knowing that Camille was single, she said, “He’s ready.” Camille was teaching then in the public school system and making ceramics at home. She asked Hatch to come over and take a look at her pots and he asked her to audition for a play he cowrote with UCLA colleague C. Bernard Jackson inspired by the Greensboro, North Carolina, student sit-ins, Fly Blackbird. She was never quite as good at acting as she had hoped and was selected for the chorus, but she was onstage at the Metropolitan Theater in LA. Jim was the first person to tell Camille she was a good artist. “I will always love him for that,” she says. His support provided her with permission to be whoever she pleased in any given moment, even if that meant not being pretty, what her family said a woman must be at all costs. This introduced Camille to a new way of being. A world of artists and activists, organized by the American Civil Liberties Union, who began protesting school segregation and Black oppression. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, Camille was the mistress of a White man who believed in her, and despite Los Angeles being on the precipice of the Watts Uprising, she was not deterred by the vile language and glares thrown at them by strangers. Camille began slowly shedding the cultural influences of middle-class Black America. Her parents had come to California during the Great Migration, like many Southern Blacks who moved west in search of opportunity and the possibility of providing their family with security from the violence inflicted on Black bodies. In LA they worked in service to White folks, therefore it wasn’t necessarily work that they couldn’t attain in the South, it was their dignity. Her father, Luscious, from Texas, was a cook and her mother, Alma, from South Carolina, was a domestic and seamstress. However, escaping the South in physicality doesn’t remove the emotional traumas of being Black in America; their White ideals were held firmly intact and their Southern traditions folded neatly within. Whiteness was still seen as superior in eloquence and refinement and the Billopses would emulate this in their home, for appearances’ sake, but when the burlap curtains closed at night, Luscious drank like a fish until he passed out and his wife carried him to bed each night. Alma bestowed these beliefs of Black female servitude on her two daughters, and they consented, but the youngest child will always rebel, and for Camille, Jim was the catalyst. She had been taught that motherhood and womanhood were inextricable. If you were not a mother, then what would you be? Mother is to be a woman’s highest title, and anything that takes precedence, even your own dream, is deemed selfish. Images of Camille with baby Christa show a polished and respectable young lady with permed hair and slicked-down edges. But in the images with Jim, you can see the physical transformation. She cuts off her permed roller set curls and has a small perfectly picked Afro. The hairs along her top lip thicken and grow wildly, untamed. Camille preferred to be called artist, not mama. She had never allowed Christa to call her Mama, she was to call her Bootsie, like all of her closest friends and family. Jim also suspected that Camille was giving up Christa for him and offered just enough discouragement to absolve himself of responsibility, “Don’t give Christa up for me.” When Jim was offered a Fulbright appointment to teach at the High Institute of Cinema in Cairo, Egypt, the center of the 1960s Pan-African movement that brought over many young American artists and activists like Maya Angelou and Malcolm X, he asked Camille to come visit before his wife and kids arrived, and without hesitation she went. But before departing Cairo, she told him she would not return unless he left his wife and children. “He met me at the airport and his wife left,” she says, “we chose each other and entered into another life. That’s when the world opened.”In Cairo, Camille began experimenting with sculpture and her first solo exhibition at Gallerie Akhenaton was a small collection of ceramic pots and sculptures of those close to her, like Jim, who would serve as her constant muse, benefactor, and advocate. Their intimacy and artistry were to always exist intertwined given the racially charged political unrest that they protested in their life and through their creations. They dared to love each other in a time when interracial relationships were still considered criminal in the United States. Their first collaboration was a book of poetry called Poems for Niggers and Crackers, published in Cairo in 1965, with poems written by Jim and American poet Ibrahim Ibn Ismail; Camille created the illustrations. Driven by all that she had sacrificed, Camille explored any medium she could get her hands on, photography, painting, printmaking, and eventually film, which would be her most critically acclaimed work. She spent many years creating and showing work in Egypt, Germany, and China before returning to her homeland after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, to find her own countrymen not so welcoming to Black women artists. They settled into New York City’s East Village where the Armenian American English professor and author Leo Hamalian helped Jim secure a teaching position in theater at City College while Camille taught ceramics there. As with all great artists, there comes a time when you must turn inward and begin dissecting yourself, to become the subject of your own examination. This led Camille into filmmaking.IIICamille tells me:“I was with all of the various Nigga bitches. Emma Amos, Faith Ringgold, Elizabeth Catlett. They had Black night at museums like the Whitney where they would let us in the building but not show our work. We were fighting so hard to get into the Brooklyn Museum and they wouldn’t let us in. So we said, well fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I said, you know what, I’m making my own way. So we bought this big-ass loft a long time ago when it was cheap. I told Jim, why don’t we buy a loft, and we did it. Jim had most of the money. I had a little something to contribute. I told him I wanted my name on it, and he said okay, so we got married. We are all we have. I would have never ended up being a working artist if it weren’t for him. His favorite words were ‘Why not?’ and ‘Yes you can.’ We created a library space, a studio in the back, an archive, and the dining area is where we host salons for our publication Artist and Influence. Every Black artist of our time has sat right here in this living room, and we recorded it all—bell hooks, Julie Dash, Amiri Baraka, all the Niggas. We invited everybody here: friends, students, and White gallerists and curators. We sold art right off our walls. I stopped begging a long time ago when I discovered I could sell art without having to kiss booty. These alternatives made it possible. Bob Blackburn was very helpful, he taught me printmaking. There were many artists that I met at the print shop while I was working, like Romi [Romare Bearden]. This is what you do when people don’t let you into their playground. We did it out of defiance. I always did whatever I wanted to do.“In the early ’80s Christa found me. It was a great shock to me. She sent a letter and a cassette tape with a song, asking me if I would see her. She was twenty-something. I was scared because I had already learned how to live with my guilt about giving her up. I wasn’t trying to come out from beneath the water. I was never a very good mother. I did what was best for both of us. I was twenty-three and I hardly saw her when she was little, she was always with my sister Billie or my mama. Mothers are supposed to protect, and the only way I could do that was by giving her up. I didn’t see this as feminist then, I just knew I wanted to reverse it, I wanted to be free of motherhood. I agreed to meet with her. Jim really liked her, and they got on. Naturally, she was an artist like me, it’s in her blood. When I started making films, she helped us. You can hear her voice singing on the opening scene of Suzanne, Suzanne about my niece’s drug addiction and her abusive father. People wasn’t talking about domestic violence back then. Our films had a tendency toward dirty laundry, they say it like it is, not like it’s supposed to be. It was hard enough being Black so everyone wanted to appear perfect, keep up appearances, you know. My sister wanted to take Christa but I didn’t trust my brother-in-law, Suzanne’s father. Her adopted mother, Margaret, was fabulous, a jazz singer. She was the little ship that helped me sail the dangerous night. Then we made the film Finding Christa. Christa stayed here with us for a while when we were making the film and then she moved to New York to study, so I could help her become a singer. We were always fighting because she wanted me to feel guilty. She kept asking me why I gave her away. It was always verbally violent, and guilt-ridden. I was all kinds of bitches to her. She wasn’t easy. I tried to explain to her that I didn’t want to be a mother. But it was complicated. Jim says we were too much alike. She’s a Sagittarius and I’m a Leo, too much fire. She was a star in Finding Christa. People say I show no remorse in the film, they say I’m cold, but if I had to do it again I would. I know I made the right decision, wouldn’t change a thing. Well, the only thing I would do differently would be to give her up earlier. But it was hard. Her father disappearing on me was a gift, otherwise if he had stayed, I would have just endured, that’s what Black women did in my family, endured. Christa was a very good actress, and this was a part of our competitiveness. She took up space in a way that was threatening to me. This caused a big friction when she was staying with us. Adoptees have what they call ‘the great wound,’ and it would always come back to, ‘Why did you throw me away?’ She would come and stay here and see everything that we have built and turn to me and ask, ‘Why wasn’t I here? Why wasn’t I a part of this?’ Jim welcomed her with open arms. But I didn’t like her taking up so much space here. I would correct her and let her know, ‘This ain’t your place. You don’t own this.’ She was even beginning to claim the film, saying it was her film. I said, ‘Now wait a minute, you didn’t shoot that film. I shot that film. I cut that film.’ She wanted to be a filmmaker but want and spit are two different things. Yeah, so I suppose there was some essence of competitiveness. She was difficult, I was difficult. We had an argument and then she walked out one day. Then one day she returned. It didn’t last. It became argumentative again. Then she left again in 2013. We didn’t talk again. I let it go. She had become ill and had to have an operation. Then she needed another one and she said she wouldn’t have it. She killed herself by not taking that operation. I wasn’t invited to the funeral. When she died somebody called to tell me. Who was it that called me? I don’t remember. It was early in the morning. Like a blast from the furnace. You have to stand very still and face it. Then I had to bury it. Jim and I both. And that was it. It has to have a place. I’ve accepted the guilt. I will carry it with me forever. Sometimes I feel her when I am working.”IVBefore Christa’s death she shared a letter on her Facebook page in 2014 titled “Given up Twice—Is It All Worth It?” In the letter she speaks about calling her stepfather, Jim, on Father’s Day 2013 and Camille also picking up a receiver in a different room and abruptly hanging up when Christa announced herself. Half an hour after the call Christa receives an email from Jim stating that she should never call or visit their home again. Christa suspects that this email was written by Camille, as it contains a “callous” brashness that isn’t indicative of Jim’s character toward her. The email stated that both Jim and Camille were “cutting all communications” with her, including “telephone, letters, on the internet and personal appearances on the tai chi court,” as she was causing too many disruptions in their lives. The email was signed by Jim and sent from his account, but the statement “four-year-old child continues to protest her mother’s decision for giving her up” were words that she had heard endlessly from her biological mother. Christa never spoke to Camille again, but after seeing a therapist, she concluded that Camille was uncomfortable with Christa’s intimate relationship with Jim. Thirty-two years after reuniting, Christa was dismissed. This three-thousand-word letter is filled with discreet anger, confusion, hurt that reads like a muffled scream into the abyss of social media. She signed the letter, “Christa Victoria (my name since birth).”In the film Finding Christa, which won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance, making Camille the first Black woman producer/director to be awarded this prize, Christa says that she felt like an octopus, wanting to extend all parts of herself around the woman who birthed her, but Camille felt like a cactus, sharp and defensive. Christa also states that meeting her birth mother and biological family saved her life, but one may consider their final split to be the event that led to her demise. Camille challenged assumptions about what a Black middle-class woman had to be and chose her artistry above all else; despite her family’s beliefs that she chose Jim, she was choosing herself. To assume that Camille prioritized her relationship with her life partner seems misplaced and in contradiction to her radical act, which was to choose herself even when everything around her said that her purpose was to serve, soothe, and comfort, a rejection to the concept of Mammy. Camille’s genius lay in her ability to imagine Black futures in a country that did not value Black life and the expression of that life through art. Before Roe v. Wade, before the Loving v. Virginia ruling, she made decisions that seemed improbable.The future that Camille envisioned was one that benefited the well-being and advancement of not just one individual being that she birthed but an entire generation of artists and scholars who were nourished by her contributions as an artist and archivist. Christa, unfortunately, was a casualty in Camille’s ambitious defiance."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Couture in Paris, Cuts at the 'Post'",
"author" : "Louis Pisano",
"category" : "essay",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/bezos-sanchez-paris-couture-week-wapo-layoffs",
"date" : "2026-02-02 10:49:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Bezos_Sanchez_Pisano.jpg",
"excerpt" : "The Cruel Irony of the Bezos-Sánchez Empire",
"content" : "The Cruel Irony of the Bezos-Sánchez EmpireLate on January 25, as snow dusted Washington, about 60 foreign correspondents at The Washington Post hit send on an email that felt like a last stand. They had dodged gunfire in Ukraine, documented Iran’s water crises and protester crackdowns, risked sources’ lives in gang territories. Now they faced their own existential threat: rumors of up to 300 company-wide layoffs, with foreign desks, sports, metro, and arts likely gutted. Their collective letter to owner Jeff Bezos was direct, almost pleading.“Robust, powerful foreign coverage is essential to The Washington Post’s brand and its future success in whatever form the paper takes moving forward,” they wrote. “We urge you to consider how the proposed layoffs will certainly lead us first to irrelevance, not the shared success that remains attainable.” They offered flexibility on costs but drew a line: slashing overseas reporting in Trump’s second term, amid global flashpoints, would hollow out the institution they had built.Whether Bezos opened that email remains unclear. As of this writing, he has not publicly responded to it. In fact, Bezos was 4,000 miles away, strolling hand-in-hand with Lauren Sánchez Bezos into Schiaparelli’s Haute Couture show in Paris. Flashbulbs popped as they arrived, Sánchez in a blood red skirt suit from the house and a white crocodile bag. Hours on, she switched to a steel-blue-gray vintage Dior pencil-skirt suit, its enormous fur collar evoking a mob wife, for Jonathan Anderson’s couture debut with the house.The two didn’t just sit front row, either. Backstage at Dior, Bezos and Sánchez posed with Anderson and LVMH CEO Delphine Arnault. Sánchez lunched with Anna Wintour at The Ritz and was allegedly dressed by Law Roach, the “image architect” behind Zendaya’s accession to fashion darling, who once declared fashion’s power to challenge norms and amplify the marginalized. Roach reshared Sánchez’s Instagram stories, crediting the vintage Dior; later, they toured Schiaparelli’s atelier together. The partnership felt sudden and loaded.Back in D.C., the newsroom simmered. Staffers posted on X under #SaveThePost, Yeganeh Torbati recounting government violence against protesters, Loveday Morris describing blasts rattling windows and the mortal risks to sources, tagging Bezos directly in urgent appeals. In a guild-prompted twist meant to amplify the message, the Washington-Baltimore News Guild encouraged tagging even Lauren Sánchez, though not every reporter followed through. The betrayal stung deeper after years of buyouts, a libertarian-tilted Opinions section, a rebranded mission (“Riveting Storytelling for All of America”) that rang corporate. Losses topped $100 million in 2024 and now the axe is hovering over desks that produced the scoops Bezos once praised when he bought the paper for $250 million in 2013. Now, Bezos parties on in Paris, his wife climbing fashion’s ranks.While the billionaires party, a profound unease is permeating the American media landscape, exacerbated by political shifts and technological disruptions that empower owners like Bezos to sideline core missions in favor of personal ventures. The press, once a vigilant watchdog against authority, now frequently finds itself complicit with power structures, buckling under misinformation, partisan censorship, and budgetary constraints that stifle investigative depth. This dynamic deprives the public of the unflinching journalism that is capable of exposing foreign policy overreaches or everyday human struggle, amplified by economic slowdowns and subscription fatigue in an increasingly fragmented ecosystem. With eroding confidence driving audiences to social platforms, now eclipsing traditional TV and websites as the primary news source in the U.S., the fallout further deepens this public distrust.To be clear, fashion isn’t innocent in this. It loves to posture as progressive, touting body positivity, diversity, resistance as it’s relevant, but rolling out the red carpet for the ultra-rich when the checks clear, especially when the checks come from people whose fortunes are built on real harm. Once upon a time, you couldn’t simply buy your way into the Met Gala; invitations were curated by Wintour based on cultural relevance, creative influence, and a carefully guarded sense of who truly belonged in the room. That’s all over now. The Bezoses have turned every norm in fashion on its head, sponsoring the 2026 Met Gala (funding the event and reportedly influencing invites), making their debut as a couple in 2024, and now leveraging those ties to claim space in couture’s inner circles. Bezos and Sánchez’s couture jaunt is just the latest proof that fashion’s gates, once guarded by creativity and taste, now swing widest for raw wealth and access.Wintour lunches and their prominent sponsorship role in the Met Gala don’t help quell the whispers that Bezos is eyeing Condé Nast (Vogue, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker) as a “wedding gift” to Sánchez. Rumors denied yet persistent, revived by every Paris sighting.Not everyone in fashion is staying silent. Some insiders are pushing back hard against the normalization. Gabriella Karefa-Johnson, a longtime voice in the industry, posted bluntly on X: “The hyper normalization is doing my head in… keep your mouth shut about ICE if you’re mingling with them, seating them, dressing them. Accepting their cash.” She called out Amazon’s cloud systems as the backbone of DHS deportation operations and billions in government contracts that sustain what she called “Trump’s terror machine,” concluding that Bezos and Sánchez are at couture simply because they are rich—and their wealth comes from profoundly harming millions daily. “I feel crazy,” she wrote. While couture has always been a bastian of the uber-rich, Karefa-Johnson’s frustration underscores how even fashion’s own are starting to question the cost of that welcome.If that Conde-Nast deal ever materializes, the consequences would compound because control over fashion’s most influential titles would allow Bezos the opportunity to shape narratives around billionaires, soften coverage of labor abuses, environmental costs, or surveillance contracts. The same hand that funds AWS’s CIA contracts, DoD cloud deals, ICE enforcement tools, fossil-fuel operations, warehouse injuries, anti-union tactics, and small-business-crushing monopoly would quietly steer the stories about wealth and style. Already deferential to its biggest advertisers and attendees, fashion journalism would fold into the same closed loop, fusing tech dominance with cultural gatekeeping into one unassailable private empire—all of it ultimately bankrolling the yachts, the space joyrides with Katy Perry, the private-jet hops to couture shows and fashion influence, to polish an image that the Post’s own reporters once might have skewered.[x] It’s almost elegant the way one empire’s dirt gets laundered through another.It’s cruelly ironic how wide the gap between the risks assumed by WaPo correspondents tasked with holding power to account and the comfort with which their owner moves among the powerful in Paris actually is. Fashion has political power, as Roach once said. It can challenge and provoke. It can also resist. But when it courts figures like Bezos, whose empire thrives on the very inequalities it sometimes pretends to critique, it becomes another asset in his already enormous portfolio.But there is no challenge, no provocation. There is no major resistance. Instead, there’s champagne and constant disassociation. Somewhere between the clink of glasses and the photos, Bezos and his wife get a glow up while The Washington Post newsroom waits, knowing the cuts are coming but not yet here. No one is confused about what happened; this is simply how the trade now unfortunately works.Wealth drifts through media, fashion, culture, picking up prestige and shedding people along the way. Whether Bezos ever read the letter is beside the point. The stranger thing is how little anyone expects him, or anyone like him, to answer anymore."
}
,
{
"title" : "Why We Must Bring Disability into Immigrant Liberation",
"author" : "Conchita Hernandez Legorreta, Qudsiya Naqui",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/disability-immigrant-liberation",
"date" : "2026-02-02 09:49:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Disability-Immigration-Collage-Compressed.jpeg",
"excerpt" : "It is the only way to move toward collective liberation.",
"content" : "It is the only way to move toward collective liberation.A vertical digital collage in shades of orange, teal, and blue. In the background, a semi-transparent AAC communication device displays the text “I can help.” The top left shows a woman with a hearing aid in profile. On the right, a woman in a black headscarf gestures toward her ear. At the bottom, a woman and a child stand on a bed of large, realistic ice cubes; both are using white canes for the blind. Orange sparks float across the center, and the overall style is grainy, reminiscent of a Riso-printed protest zine. Illustration Credit: Jennifer White-JohnsonThe deadly surge of ICE agents in Minneapolis and across the country has wreaked havoc across communities, with particularly dangerous consequences for disabled people. In one instance on January 15, 2026, a woman in Minneapolis, Aliya Rahman, was pulled from her car and into an ICE vehicle, despite telling the ICE agents that she was on her way to a doctor’s appointment. The woman explained that she was autistic and needed accommodations, which the ICE agents readily ignored.The reentrenchment of ableism in Trump 2.0 is everywhere. In July 2025, for example, the president issued an executive order, “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” which seeks to overturn decades of progress for disabled people. The “R- word,” a slur against people with cognitive disabilities and a word that so many activists fought to eliminate from our daily lexicon, is back in full force. And for many immigrants with disabilities, the cultural landscape is more treacherous than ever: since Trump’s ascent, his administration has continued to double down on a centuries-old legacy of ableism and maltreatment of disabled immigrants. Most recently, the State Department announced that it will suspend the processing of immigrant visas from 75 countries because their citizens are collectively deemed likely to become reliant on public assistance if admitted into the U.S. This not only reflects our government’s racist and xenophobic approach to immigration—it is also a clear manifestation of its contempt for disabled people, or anyone perceived as unable to produce the labor that drives American capitalism.This is why conversations about disability must be central to the movement for immigrant justice. When we create resources and protections for the most marginalized, we move closer to liberation for all immigrant communities.The term “no le digas a nadie” or “do not tell anyone” is a phrase many immigrants know and take to heart. It speaks to the fear that, if you tell the wrong person, your life and your family’s can be turned upside down. This is felt tenfold by disabled immigrants: Today, an estimated 1 in 4 Americans has a disability. With over 15.2 million immigrants in the United States, a large portion may have disabilities, even if they do not identify as having one. Disability is often stigmatized, leading people to hide their conditions or have less access to information and services. Disability is also the only minority group that anyone can join at any time, whether from birth, through chronic illness, or accident. What’s more, many people become disabled as they travel long distances to cross borders. The immigration system itself creates disability in the violence of enforcement and the terrible conditions of immigrant detention.As a formerly undocumented blind educator and a blind law professor who has spent the past 15 years advocating for immigrant and disability justice, we understand firsthand the added layer that comes with being disabled, in addition to being a target of immigration enforcement. One of us (Conchita) remembers feeling anxious to go outside while growing up undocumented, for fear of having any type of encounter with law enforcement. She and her family were terrified of disclosing any information to the wrong person who might report them to immigration officials. As a result, Conchita hid her immigration and disability status from most people. This led to a lack of information and access to resources, as well as exclusion from a community that could have supported her.Conchita’s story is not unique. We have heard countless accounts of disabled immigrants being arrested and detained without basic access to the tools they need to communicate and defend themselves. In November 2025, ICE detained a blind man in New York and denied him access to his white cane and a text-to-speech app on his phone that he needed in order to read legal documents. A few months before that, in June, a Deaf man lawfully present in the U.S. was arrested in Los Angeles, and even though he signaled to the ICE agents that he could not speak, he was thrown into a vehicle and sent to a detention center without any communication about why he was being detained. ICE took away his phone when he attempted to communicate, and when he arrived at the detention facility in El Paso, Texas, he was provided with documents in Spanish, a language he cannot read. In all of these situations, lack of accessibility led to needless incarceration and family separation without fair due process.But despite this struggle, ableism, disability, and accessibility are rarely discussed in the fight for immigrant justice. Activists on the front lines of immigration work often do not understand the full scope of disability and its impact on people’s lives. Many immigration advocates tend to be on a shoestring budget and have told us, “We do not have the capacity right now” when we’ve asked to make immigration resources accessible, or to grow their understanding of disability rights laws and the lived experiences of disabled people. Not to mention, disabled lawyers and legal advocates are grossly underrepresented in their professions, and as a consequence, this perspective, including making critical legal information accessible to all, is not part of the conversation. For instance, videos that show how to confront ICE should include captions, transcripts, and audio descriptions, but rarely do.This became clear to us when we presented a “Know Your Rights” webinar to support disabled immigrants in August 2025, as ICE enforcement actions expanded across the country. To our surprise, over 150 people attended the webinar, including disabled immigrants and their allies concerned about how they would protect themselves if they encountered ICE. We received questions like, “What do I do if I’m blind and I’m presented with a paper warrant I can’t read?” or “What if ICE agents take my phone and I can’t signal to them that I’m deaf and need an interpreter?”What many people tend to forget is that when accessibility and inclusion are part of the conversation for any movement work, the result benefits everyone. We saw this during the COVID-19 pandemic, when immigration and disability rights advocates came together to challenge the detention of those at risk of severe illness or death using federal disability rights laws. This helped reduce transmission rates, reaffirm fair legal standards for all, and strengthen public health by giving everyone accessible vaccination information and even food resources. Designing a world and protections that help people with disabilities is just as crucial to our advocacy as organizing protests, defending individuals in deportation cases, and lobbying our lawmakers to support more humane immigration policies.Our plea to immigration advocates is that they make it a priority to understand the full extent of how immigration and disability justice intersect. They can do this by educating themselves on disability rights laws that apply in detention centers and when people come into contact with federal, state, and local law enforcement. Immigration advocates must also ensure that legal information and other educational content they produce are accessible to everyone.Above all, they must form coalitions with people with disabilities and incorporate their ideas into all advocacy efforts. Because our shared survival depends on the survival of every individual and community affected by this administration. Bringing disability into the immigrant struggle is the only way to move toward collective access, cross-movement solidarity, and collective liberation."
}
,
{
"title" : "Against Dictators and Intervention: Sahar Delijani on Iran",
"author" : "Sahar Delijani, Céline Semaan",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/sahar-delijani-on-iran",
"date" : "2026-02-01 16:53:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/2026_01_29_Sahar_Interview_1.jpg",
"excerpt" : "CÉLINE:These are very difficult times as we are watching what’s happening in Iran unfolding in such a rapid pace, there are numbers that are coming out in the news: first we saw a few thousand, then we saw 5000 reported on Democracy Now! and recently, we have gone from 30,000 to 45,000 people massacred in Iran. What is the latest that you’ve heard from your end, from Iranian sources?",
"content" : "CÉLINE:These are very difficult times as we are watching what’s happening in Iran unfolding in such a rapid pace, there are numbers that are coming out in the news: first we saw a few thousand, then we saw 5000 reported on Democracy Now! and recently, we have gone from 30,000 to 45,000 people massacred in Iran. What is the latest that you’ve heard from your end, from Iranian sources?SAHAR DELIJANI:I’m hearing the same numbers, I’ve heard anything from 20,000 to 30,000 to 40,000. It’s really hard to verify for the people on the ground and for people human rights organizations, even though I know that they’re working around the clock to be able to identify bodies, but the regime is really trying as much as it can to repress the information coming out. We are even hearing news of mass graves, of bodies that were just taken from the morgues and never seen again. We hear news of families that have been just going from morgue to morgue, station to station, hospital to hospital, looking for their loved ones, and they still haven’t found them.We hear news of doctors who were helping the wounded who are now imprisoned under the charge of collaborating with Israel or waging war against God, which is one of the charges that usually Islamic Republic uses to push for execution. Terrible news coming out from all these small towns, all these areas in Iran where thousands of people have been killed, and a lot of them with gunshot wounds at close range in their chest or their neck or their heads.So it’s an absolute to nightmare. I don’t even know what the right word is, but it’s one of the biggest slaughters of civil uprising we’ve ever seen in our recent history.CÉLINE:Thank you. And I know that now everyone is watching, holding their breath for what is potentially a US intervention. The situation is escalating. There are the people of Iran are facing their own government oppression, and they might be also under US bombs. Do you have any family members in Iran? How are you coping with the news, and what are the best ways to follow what’s happening now closely on the ground?SAHAR DELIJANI:Yes, I do have family and friends, and it’s just devastating that they are now sort of trapped between these two absolutely brutal forces. One is the Islamic Republic on the ground, just slaughtering its own people. And then you know, the threat of wars and bombs and the devastation that we know it will bring. The tragedy is immense. I don’t even have the right words to talk about it. Iranian people have worked so hard in the past 30-40 years to be able to build a democratic society, to be able to have freedom for everyone, for minorities, for women, for a society to be built on equality and justice.This isn’t the first time the Iranian people have been fighting against this regime — this has been a long, long fight, and I feel like it has reached a point of no return. We will not be the same people. I am not the same person as I was just a few days, few weeks back. And you know, this is also, in some ways, the story of our of our region. There’s just too much blood, too much violence, and there’s this open wound that had been in Iran since the 80s, with the mass executions of political prisoners, including my own family members, and that wound was still open, and now we have this we have this slaughter. Our region needs and deserves something more than wars or dictatorship. We deserve to be able to fight for what we want. We deserve to be able to live in safe societies, to live in dignity, to live in freedom, and the right to fight for it.CÉLINE:An attack on Iran is an attack on the region, on the Iranian people, first and foremost, but also has repercussions on the entire region. A lot of people think that the Iranian government is holding the Palestinian cause, and is the only force that has been against Israel. How is it looking like from your perspective, as someone who is understanding of the Palestinian cause and seeing what’s happening and unfolding today?SAHAR DELIJANI:I think any attack on any country in the region is an attack on the region. I don’t think this is only about valid for Iran. When Iraq was attacked, it was an attack on the region, when Afghanistan was attacked, when it was an attack on the region, all of our fates are intertwined, they’re not separate from each other. They’re not isolated. I do not believe that the Iranian regime has been fighting for the Palestinian cause. I believe that, yes, the Iranian regime is the enemy of Israel. That doesn’t mean that it has the Palestinian cause in its heart. It only means that it has its own geopolitical interest and advancements that it wants to push forward.It wants more power and more influence in the region. And it uses the Syrian civil war, it uses the opportunities it has in Iraq, and throughout the region, it’s only pushing forward its own agenda. I think that is very important to note also, because a country that has been torturing and killing its own people, how could it liberate another people?What does that liberation even look like when we talk about America bringing this rhetoric of liberation, why don’t we believe it? Because we know what it means, because we’ve seen it historically, and we also see what it does to its own people. If an American power that speaks of liberation for the Iranian does this to its own people—kills them in broad daylight, their shoots them in the face, in their car, or arrest protesters, abducts people. Same goes for Iran and Palestine. What kind of liberation does Iran have in mind for Palestine, if it’s killing its own people, if it’s repressing its own people?I believe that anti war movements, anti imperialist movements must go hand in hand with anti dictatorship movements and pro democracy movements. Otherwise, it’s just empty shells, it changes nothing for the people on the ground. We need to want the same things for everyone, we can’t pick and choose whose liberation we want or whose repression is okay for now, no one’s repression is okay. Because I think more everybody wants the same thing. We might have different ways of expressing it, but people want to live in dignity and safety and equality, right? Everybody wants that, so we need to listen to them, instead of imposing our own geopolitical agendas or our own interpretation of the region, without listening to the people living that reality.CÉLINE:Absolutely. How can a dictator that is also violating the rights of their own constituents and their own citizens in the United States, such as Donald Trump, want the best for Iranians? That’s where the cognitive dissonance happens online when we have members of the Iranian diaspora who are calling for US intervention, and in that same breath, harassing or attacking or creating a campaign against anyone who is raising a flag that US intervention might not lead to liberation for Iranian people. US intervention has a track record of being disastrous, from Iraq to Afghanistan to what’s going on in Venezuela around the world, wherever the United States came in to “save” it never really ended up being for the people. How do you make sense of this call for US intervention?SAHAR DELIJANI:I think in the diaspora, we have a responsibility not to call for more violence, especially when we’re not going to be the victims of that violence, not being in Iran ourselves. Because when we say no bombs, no intervention in Iran, we mean it for everybody. But the people in Iran who are asking for [US military intervention] are not just completely crazy—just think about the reality that the extremely difficult, violent reality that the Iranian regime, the Islamic Republic, has made for people, that they’ve reached a point that they’re thinking, “Oh, maybe bombs, at least would save us from this violence.”People who have lived through a tragedy, a massacre of 30,000 people in just a few days, you know, there is just so much pain. There’s so much pain, okay, but you’re saying, you know that the foreign intervention is dangerous, but look at what is happening to us now. The only way we are credible to the people on the ground if we want to stand against this sort of imperialist interventions and forces, is if we stand as strongly against the dictators that are killing them. Now, if we are just a little bit hesitant, even a tiny bit hesitant, to stand against those dictators, we are being huge hypocrites, and nobody will believe us. Nobody will believe that we have their liberation in mind when we stand against imperialist intervention. You are just telling us to choose between two types of killings. We need to stand against all types of oppression, no matter who’s doing it. It’s not about who does it, it’s about what we can do to bring it to an end."
}
]
}