What do you think?
Rate this book
Les Blancs, les Juifs et nous: Vers une politique de l'amour révolutionnaire (LA FABRIQUE)
« Pourquoi j’écris ce livre ? Parce que je partage l’angoisse de Gramsci : “le vieux monde se meurt. Le nouveau est long à apparaître et c’est dans ce clair-obscur que surgissent les monstres”. Le monstre fasciste, né des entrailles de la modernité occidentale. D’où ma question : qu’offrir aux Blancs en échange de leur déclin et des guerres qu’il annonce ? Une seule réponse : la paix. Un seul moyen : l’amour révolutionnaire. »
Dans ce texte fulgurant, Houria Bouteldja brosse l’histoire à rebrousse-poil. C’est du point de vue de l’indigène qu’elle évoque le pacte républicain, la Shoah, la création d’Israël, le féminisme et le destin de l’immigration postcoloniale en Occident. Balayant les certitudes et la bonne conscience de gauche, c’est chez Baldwin, Malcolm X ou Genet qu’elle puise les mots pour repenser nos rapports politiques. Aux grands récits racistes des Soral et Finkielkraut, elle fournit un puissant antidote : une politique de paix qui dessine les contours d’un « nous » décolonial, « le Nous de l’amour révolutionnaire ».
115 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 14, 2016
52 people are currently reading
1253 people want to read
About the author
Houria Bouteldja
9 books56 followersHouria Bouteldja is a French-Algerian political activist and writer focusing on anti-racism, anti-imperialism, and Islamophobia. She serves as spokesperson for the Parti des Indigènes de la République (Party of the Indigenous of the Republic).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
May 30, 2019
Would love to discuss this with someone else who’s read it. Provocative, urgent, searing in its clarity on the failures of the Left and the immediate need for the formation of an international decolonial majority. I found it largely accessible even without an academic background in anti-colonialism or the specificities of the French colonial state. I understand the book was heavily criticized and, amongst other things, described as antisemitic. I don’t agree, although there is certainly material in chapter 3 “You, The Jews” that I considered over-flattened — or, rather, that addressed accurately the modern role of Jewish institutions and mainstream establishments, without devoting much time to acknowledging the complex political reality of the diverse population which falls under the Jewish umbrella. Perhaps that’s just my fragility speaking, or some denial about the ideological demographics at play. It was challenging but very interesting to read a cultural/political analysis of the Jewish position from an indigenous Muslim leftist voice.
February 15, 2018
A challenging, paradigm-shifting read in the tradition of James Baldwin. Bouteldja's writing flows like rivers - the assertions hit like lightning. Many times I found myself taken aback, let out a chorus of "Daaaamnnnnssss" throughout my time with this book. This book goes beyond intersectionality, preferring instead to blow the entire Colonial, Western structure to smithereens. Bouteldja left me hopeful, hungry for change.
October 18, 2021
She talks about colonialist principles being applied to Europe in WWII (Césaire), conditional absorption into whiteness, and revisionist histories—in riddling analogies and immoderate irony. She writes more straightforwardly about internalised racism and white men in Europe claiming to stand up for women only when they can pin patriarchal oppression on (and as the exclusive domain of) the other. The last essay tries to tackle the false universality of western science, its linear idea of progress, Cartesian domination, secular individualism, but it's messy.
She is anti-imperialist but homophobic. She thinks feminism is only for white women—she lives in France, so fair enough. And yet Bouteldja may still, regrettably, be one of the better antiracist voices in France (less responsive to being bullied into silence), a country whose social justice discourse is stunted by design as it carries forward its neocolonialist crookery.
Notes: The translator needed an editor. There's no footnote about communautarisme either, which is a euphemism for extremism or non-submission into the invisibilised white French identity. Crystal Marie Fleming:
She is anti-imperialist but homophobic. She thinks feminism is only for white women—she lives in France, so fair enough. And yet Bouteldja may still, regrettably, be one of the better antiracist voices in France (less responsive to being bullied into silence), a country whose social justice discourse is stunted by design as it carries forward its neocolonialist crookery.
Notes: The translator needed an editor. There's no footnote about communautarisme either, which is a euphemism for extremism or non-submission into the invisibilised white French identity. Crystal Marie Fleming:
‘In France, it is typical for minorities trying to organize and fight for their group’s interests to be branded communitauriste [sic], a word that translates roughly as “divisive.” People (or organizations) that are labeled [communautariste] are often portrayed as insufficiently French or poorly assimilated. For example, some of the activist groups that emerged in the 2000s to address the discrimination faced by black and brown people in France have been accused of communitarianism—a charge that aims to undermine the legitimacy of antiracist movements in the eyes of the dominant group.’
June 28, 2020
Urgent, radical, and poetic. This is a book that will not let you rest. But it is provocation with purpose. I've rarely (ever?) seen such an effective deployment of careful reflection upon situatedness to propel the argument forward so swiftly. The first three chapters might seem deeply negative, almost hopeless, but you never quite lose the sense that it's all building to something, that it simply has to be animated by a hope and a future. And indeed, it is.
This is one I know I'll keep thinking about. Much to reflect upon, and many changes to make in my life.
This is one I know I'll keep thinking about. Much to reflect upon, and many changes to make in my life.
June 10, 2024
Unfathomably evil ur-text for the new wave of twenty-first century anti-Semitism. Violent racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and genocidal terrorism are all excused in the name of ''decolonisation.'' I encourage everybody to read this just to know what we are dealing with.
July 21, 2020
Many around the world and throughout history have been, and are still, victims of extreme ideologies and dogmas. They are too many to name. While resistance to such extremisms becomes only natural, the danger is when these forms of resistances become complete extremisms themselves, thus actually tarnishing the original cause they are supposed to fight for. This is the case of the “far left” Franco-Algerian militant Houria Bouteldja and her essay “The Whites, The Jews, and us: Towards a politics of revolutionary love”. While the very basic core premise, “colonialism = bad” is something to defend, the conclusions she make here transform anti-colonialism into anti-whiteness, and not in the sense of acknowledging white privilege in society (Which is a real thing), but in the sense that if you are white, then you are inherently against “us” no matter what you do. In other words, the ideology present her almost resembles a racial conflict as absurd as Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, and such extremism would make any bad event happening to a white person as something deserved. After all, they have the “power”…
An ironic aspect I found in this essay is how Bouteldja herself uses the exact categories she criticizes “the Whites” for creating. If you are going to declare how the colonialist project began with the conquest of the Americas, you can at least refrain from calling the natives “Indian Americans”… There are many oxymorons in her essay. Even though, again, some of the core ideas I do agree with, such anti-Semitism being essentially a European invention, or how many white Feminists do ignore the interests of none-white women. But to make your conclusions as Jews aren’t really Jews for whitening themselves, or feminism is inherently a bad idea, or to even declare figures like Ahmadinajad admirable for declaring that there are “no homosexuals in Iran” just because the US declared “there is no torture in Abu Ghraib”, you won’t really advance your cause. It is basically the argument of “They did it! So I will”. At times it reaches the absurdity of someone saying they support the Palestinians because they hate the Jews, or you want to fight against homophobia because you believe all heterosexuals are bad, or even the common misconception of feminism = male hating.
Someone’s life experiences can indeed forge their view of the world. I do not know what did Houria went through besides what she wrote about in her book and the random stuff I found online. But for someone to whom anti-colonialism and racism are very important topics, this book seemed like a confused angry rant. It was elegantly written at times, but the ideology presented does not advance the main causes of anti-colonialism, anti-racism, and other related causes. I had to read it in order to form my own opinion and judgment, but one cannot speak of love if their entire motivation is built on what they hate, and not what they love. Does white privilege exist? Of course it does. Are there many white racists? Of course there are. But expecting every white person to flog themselves from birth, or just portraying them as the enemy, that is not the path to take if we truly want to decolonize.
An ironic aspect I found in this essay is how Bouteldja herself uses the exact categories she criticizes “the Whites” for creating. If you are going to declare how the colonialist project began with the conquest of the Americas, you can at least refrain from calling the natives “Indian Americans”… There are many oxymorons in her essay. Even though, again, some of the core ideas I do agree with, such anti-Semitism being essentially a European invention, or how many white Feminists do ignore the interests of none-white women. But to make your conclusions as Jews aren’t really Jews for whitening themselves, or feminism is inherently a bad idea, or to even declare figures like Ahmadinajad admirable for declaring that there are “no homosexuals in Iran” just because the US declared “there is no torture in Abu Ghraib”, you won’t really advance your cause. It is basically the argument of “They did it! So I will”. At times it reaches the absurdity of someone saying they support the Palestinians because they hate the Jews, or you want to fight against homophobia because you believe all heterosexuals are bad, or even the common misconception of feminism = male hating.
Someone’s life experiences can indeed forge their view of the world. I do not know what did Houria went through besides what she wrote about in her book and the random stuff I found online. But for someone to whom anti-colonialism and racism are very important topics, this book seemed like a confused angry rant. It was elegantly written at times, but the ideology presented does not advance the main causes of anti-colonialism, anti-racism, and other related causes. I had to read it in order to form my own opinion and judgment, but one cannot speak of love if their entire motivation is built on what they hate, and not what they love. Does white privilege exist? Of course it does. Are there many white racists? Of course there are. But expecting every white person to flog themselves from birth, or just portraying them as the enemy, that is not the path to take if we truly want to decolonize.
Read
June 2, 2022Je ne veux pas donner une note unique à ce livre car il peut se juger sur différents aspects, et en faire une moyenne ne serait absolument pas pertinent.
J'en avais entendu parlé comme d'un ignoble torchon raciste ou d'un texte magnifique et radical contre le racisme, j'étais donc vraiment curieux de voir les idées présentées qui semblaient assez extrêmes et très clivantes. En fin de compte c'était très décevant, le contenu de ce livre est plutôt tiède, assez vague, les termes employés sont si flous qu'on peut y mettre un peu ce qu'on veut derrière. Houria Bouteldja y parle souvent pour ne rien dire, se répète, invente l'eau chaude la refroidit et la réchauffe à nouveau. Parfois c'est très chiant à lire et on attend juste une phrase ou un avis un peu tranché pour avoir quelque chose d'intéressant sur lequel réagir.
Quelques passages peuvent être un peu choquants, quelques uns peuvent être assez convenus.
Cette impression est aussi liée, parfois, au style d'écriture que je n'aime pas du tout (faire des grandes phrases un peu pompeuses, avoir des tournures poétiques, beaucoup de paraphrases etc), ce jugement là est très subjectif: beaucoup apprécieront la forme du texte et on ne peut pas nier qu'Houria Bouteldja possède un style certain.
Ce texte ne fait pas d'analyse précise ou sérieuse, n'offre pas vraiment de stratégie à suivre ; il n'a pas l'air d'avoir été écrit pour. Cet ouvrage sert à la personne qui l'a écrite d'exprimer son ressenti en tant que femme française (ou francisée?) issue de l'immigration maghrébine et à présenter (vraiment très) légèrement sa pensée politique. Le livre contient beaucoup de notes qui permettront aux lecteurs d'aller plus loin dans l'analyse et dans les idées affichées.
La lecture de ce livre reste malgré tout quelque chose que je conseille, l'anti racisme sous cette forme devient de plus en plus présent dans le paysage politique, les courants de gauche issus de souches marxistes et qui ont été dominants durant le XXème siècle sont peu à peu en train de disparaître et vont laissés place à de nouveaux courants d'idées concurrents ; cet ouvrage en présente un et il semble important de prendre conscience de ces nouveaux mouvements.
J'en avais entendu parlé comme d'un ignoble torchon raciste ou d'un texte magnifique et radical contre le racisme, j'étais donc vraiment curieux de voir les idées présentées qui semblaient assez extrêmes et très clivantes. En fin de compte c'était très décevant, le contenu de ce livre est plutôt tiède, assez vague, les termes employés sont si flous qu'on peut y mettre un peu ce qu'on veut derrière. Houria Bouteldja y parle souvent pour ne rien dire, se répète, invente l'eau chaude la refroidit et la réchauffe à nouveau. Parfois c'est très chiant à lire et on attend juste une phrase ou un avis un peu tranché pour avoir quelque chose d'intéressant sur lequel réagir.
Quelques passages peuvent être un peu choquants, quelques uns peuvent être assez convenus.
Cette impression est aussi liée, parfois, au style d'écriture que je n'aime pas du tout (faire des grandes phrases un peu pompeuses, avoir des tournures poétiques, beaucoup de paraphrases etc), ce jugement là est très subjectif: beaucoup apprécieront la forme du texte et on ne peut pas nier qu'Houria Bouteldja possède un style certain.
Ce texte ne fait pas d'analyse précise ou sérieuse, n'offre pas vraiment de stratégie à suivre ; il n'a pas l'air d'avoir été écrit pour. Cet ouvrage sert à la personne qui l'a écrite d'exprimer son ressenti en tant que femme française (ou francisée?) issue de l'immigration maghrébine et à présenter (vraiment très) légèrement sa pensée politique. Le livre contient beaucoup de notes qui permettront aux lecteurs d'aller plus loin dans l'analyse et dans les idées affichées.
La lecture de ce livre reste malgré tout quelque chose que je conseille, l'anti racisme sous cette forme devient de plus en plus présent dans le paysage politique, les courants de gauche issus de souches marxistes et qui ont été dominants durant le XXème siècle sont peu à peu en train de disparaître et vont laissés place à de nouveaux courants d'idées concurrents ; cet ouvrage en présente un et il semble important de prendre conscience de ces nouveaux mouvements.
September 17, 2019
would recommend, especially to those who mistakenly suspect that decolonialism is some muddled rehash of Marxism. Critiquing the left, Bouteldja makes the topic eminently readable and highly digestible.
June 24, 2024
i'll tell u what, she wrote the shit out of these sentences
July 20, 2025
Zie recensie van Arne.
July 24, 2025
Dit boek kent een zekere poëtische kracht en is in literaire zin boeiend geschreven. Vandaar toch twee sterren. Het betoog echter is weinig onderbouwd, moeilijk navolgbaar (nogal van de hak op de tak) en nogal essentialistisch. Ik kan me voorstellen dat dat minder storend is als je het, in de kern, al met de auteur eens bent.
De auteur wijst de westerse waarden en gemeenschap ogenschijnlijk volledig af. Dit lijkt voort te komen uit een ressentiment tegen de westerse maatschappij, als gevolg van discriminatie, uitsluiting en uitbuiting. Zo zou de westerse maatschappij "droog" en "poëzieloos" zijn. Dergelijke boude stellingen worden echter niet onderbouwd.
De auteur lijkt bijzonder pessimistisch over de multiculturele samenleving en het ontwikkelen van een inclusiever nationaal verhaal. De auteur meent echter dat migrantengroepen een alliantie kunnen sluiten met de witte onderklasse en de joodse gemeenschap. Het wordt echter niet duidelijk hoe die alliantie zou kunnen ontstaan. Het zo rabiaat afwijzen van de westerse cultuur als de auteur doet lijkt mij, echter, een slecht begin. De auteur lijkt zelf echter ook pessimistisch over de haalbaarheid van haar "revolutionairy love" en het te zien als een soort "hail mary".
Desalniettemin een boek dat je niet onberoerd laat.
EDIT: ik lees in een bespreking dat de auteur juist níét als essentialistisch moet worden gezien, omdat ze ras niet als (biologisch) gedetermineerd ziet, maar als gevolg van sociale relaties. Echter schrijft ze zo veel welhaast metafysische eigenschappen toe aan bepaalde sociale groepen, en is ze zo pessimistisch over de veranderlijkheid daarvan, dat ik haar in haar benaderwijze toch wel als in de praktijk essentialistisch zou aanwijzen.
De auteur wijst de westerse waarden en gemeenschap ogenschijnlijk volledig af. Dit lijkt voort te komen uit een ressentiment tegen de westerse maatschappij, als gevolg van discriminatie, uitsluiting en uitbuiting. Zo zou de westerse maatschappij "droog" en "poëzieloos" zijn. Dergelijke boude stellingen worden echter niet onderbouwd.
De auteur lijkt bijzonder pessimistisch over de multiculturele samenleving en het ontwikkelen van een inclusiever nationaal verhaal. De auteur meent echter dat migrantengroepen een alliantie kunnen sluiten met de witte onderklasse en de joodse gemeenschap. Het wordt echter niet duidelijk hoe die alliantie zou kunnen ontstaan. Het zo rabiaat afwijzen van de westerse cultuur als de auteur doet lijkt mij, echter, een slecht begin. De auteur lijkt zelf echter ook pessimistisch over de haalbaarheid van haar "revolutionairy love" en het te zien als een soort "hail mary".
Desalniettemin een boek dat je niet onberoerd laat.
EDIT: ik lees in een bespreking dat de auteur juist níét als essentialistisch moet worden gezien, omdat ze ras niet als (biologisch) gedetermineerd ziet, maar als gevolg van sociale relaties. Echter schrijft ze zo veel welhaast metafysische eigenschappen toe aan bepaalde sociale groepen, en is ze zo pessimistisch over de veranderlijkheid daarvan, dat ik haar in haar benaderwijze toch wel als in de praktijk essentialistisch zou aanwijzen.
May 4, 2024
livre vraiment très intéressant. il m’a poussée à emmener ma réflexion plus loin, surtout sur le sujet du sionisme, de l’antisemitisme et du racisme. son but final, l’amour révolutionnaire n’est pas vraiment une solution à laquelle j’ai porté beaucoup d’attention dans le passé, mais son argumentaire m’a poussé à me poser plus de la simple phrase “mai’s qui est hitler” m’a fait réfléchir et me dire que finalement, hitler n’est pas si différent que les leaders français ou britanniques de l’époque, il a commis un genocide sur des blancs et non pas des indigènes d’afrique.
September 8, 2020
Emotional ramblings of a person who really doesn't quite know what is right.
Some good points, but overall I feel like someone just ranted at me about everything that's wrong in the world. Not the best of reads.
Some good points, but overall I feel like someone just ranted at me about everything that's wrong in the world. Not the best of reads.
April 17, 2024
a couple of new perspective-changing things to contemplate that idk how to feel about:
- feminism as an "exported European phenomena" (92) - colonizers impose relations of domination including gender, feminism only serves now to disrupt indigenous solidarity (i.e. "colonial states... always skillfully integrate certain layers of the proletariat and of women" 91)
- religion as core of solidarity building - decentering the self, no hierarchies except for god, accepting one cannot dominate (the natural world, other races, other genders, etc.) (132-133)
other interesting things:
- utility of immigrants is not just economic but that they "carry...and conserve the memory of societies based on solidarity, where collective consciousness is strong... of resisting the atomization of society and fanatical individualism" (131) aka the power of immigrants / indigenous people / the Third World is the solidarity as opposed to the rational individualism underlying the West
- decolonial perspective versus white Left: "they say: capitalist expansion therefore class struggle; we answer: colonial expansion therefore racial struggle" (118)
- on the previous bullet point: the idea that it's not just capitalism or an econ system that has created these issues but "a globalism characterized by capital, colonial domination, the modern state... a religion, a culture, and a language... less an economic system than an civilization: Modernity" (118)
- our relationship to the Global South as immigrants in the Global North - "we must accept our role in the crime. In euphemistic terms, our integration...there is, objectively, a conflict of interest between us and them, if only because of the partial redistribution of the pillaging and because our lives are more protected" (120-121)
- feminism as an "exported European phenomena" (92) - colonizers impose relations of domination including gender, feminism only serves now to disrupt indigenous solidarity (i.e. "colonial states... always skillfully integrate certain layers of the proletariat and of women" 91)
- religion as core of solidarity building - decentering the self, no hierarchies except for god, accepting one cannot dominate (the natural world, other races, other genders, etc.) (132-133)
other interesting things:
- utility of immigrants is not just economic but that they "carry...and conserve the memory of societies based on solidarity, where collective consciousness is strong... of resisting the atomization of society and fanatical individualism" (131) aka the power of immigrants / indigenous people / the Third World is the solidarity as opposed to the rational individualism underlying the West
- decolonial perspective versus white Left: "they say: capitalist expansion therefore class struggle; we answer: colonial expansion therefore racial struggle" (118)
- on the previous bullet point: the idea that it's not just capitalism or an econ system that has created these issues but "a globalism characterized by capital, colonial domination, the modern state... a religion, a culture, and a language... less an economic system than an civilization: Modernity" (118)
- our relationship to the Global South as immigrants in the Global North - "we must accept our role in the crime. In euphemistic terms, our integration...there is, objectively, a conflict of interest between us and them, if only because of the partial redistribution of the pillaging and because our lives are more protected" (120-121)
January 23, 2023
quelle claque
September 12, 2025
molt molt provocador i necessari 🥷🏾🫀
October 20, 2024
Du bien et du moins bien
July 27, 2025
Selon le lectorat, ça peut être dur à lire
March 31, 2024
Radicaal en provocerend. Houria Bouteldja confronteert de weldekende goegemeente en blaast heilige huisjes omver. Het Westen en de witte man die zich permitteert het morele centrum van de wereld te zijn moeten het terecht ontgelden.
Bijzonder interessant vond ik de stukken over hoe nazigenocide in het centrum, oftewel 'de achteruitkijkspiegel' staat van het Westen en hoe men van de herdenking Holocaust een 'Europese burgerlijke religie' heeft gemaakt. De Joden, die ooit zelf droomden van universalisme, worden nu opgesloten in het Zionistisch project Israël, waar ze dienen als gewapende arm van het imperialisme in de Arabische wereld. De auteur wijst er fijntjes op dat het Zionisme misschien wel bedacht is door een Jood, maar is gerealiseerd door witte mensen.
Bouteldja schrijft dat Joden en Arabieren een gemeenschappelijke strijd delen, soms wordt het haast een liefdesbrief aan de Joden: "Jullie zijn me zowel vertrouwd als vreemd. Vertrouwd omdat jullie niet wit zijn en niet in de antisemitische witheid kunnen opgelost worden, vreemd omdat jullie zijn witgewassen en ingepast in hogere rangorde van de raciale hiërarchie. In werkelijkheid is alles nog mogelijk tussen ons. (...) Jullie leven nog steeds in het getto. Wat als we er eens samen uit weggaan?"
Het boek is een striemende aanklacht tegen de witte wereldorde. Ondanks de zware thematiek leest het vlot, is het taalgebruik poëtisch en bezwerend, in een directe stijl. Het zal moeilijk zijn om dit boek te lezen en niet op z'n minst beroerd te worden. Aan het einde wordt het boek ook verzoenend, uitnodigend. De ondertitel is niet voor niets "Naar een politiek van revolutionaire liefde".
Bijzonder interessant vond ik de stukken over hoe nazigenocide in het centrum, oftewel 'de achteruitkijkspiegel' staat van het Westen en hoe men van de herdenking Holocaust een 'Europese burgerlijke religie' heeft gemaakt. De Joden, die ooit zelf droomden van universalisme, worden nu opgesloten in het Zionistisch project Israël, waar ze dienen als gewapende arm van het imperialisme in de Arabische wereld. De auteur wijst er fijntjes op dat het Zionisme misschien wel bedacht is door een Jood, maar is gerealiseerd door witte mensen.
Bouteldja schrijft dat Joden en Arabieren een gemeenschappelijke strijd delen, soms wordt het haast een liefdesbrief aan de Joden: "Jullie zijn me zowel vertrouwd als vreemd. Vertrouwd omdat jullie niet wit zijn en niet in de antisemitische witheid kunnen opgelost worden, vreemd omdat jullie zijn witgewassen en ingepast in hogere rangorde van de raciale hiërarchie. In werkelijkheid is alles nog mogelijk tussen ons. (...) Jullie leven nog steeds in het getto. Wat als we er eens samen uit weggaan?"
Het boek is een striemende aanklacht tegen de witte wereldorde. Ondanks de zware thematiek leest het vlot, is het taalgebruik poëtisch en bezwerend, in een directe stijl. Het zal moeilijk zijn om dit boek te lezen en niet op z'n minst beroerd te worden. Aan het einde wordt het boek ook verzoenend, uitnodigend. De ondertitel is niet voor niets "Naar een politiek van revolutionaire liefde".
July 19, 2020
a fantastic little book on postcolonialism, whiteness, palestine liberation, and a kind of radicalism in search of hope and pragmaticism.
i recommend the first two chapters in particular to any and all Westerners: "I am a criminal. But an extremely sophisticated one. I don’t have any blood on my hands. That would be too vulgar. No justice system in the world would drag me to court. I outsource my crime. [...] Between my crime and I, first there is geographic distance and then geopolitical distance. But there are also great international bodies: the UN, the IMF, NATO, multinationals, the banking system. Between my crime and I, there are national bodies: democracy, the rule of law, the Republic, the elections. Between my crime and I, there are beautiful ideas: human rights, universalism, freedom, humanism, secularism, the memory of the Shoah, feminism, Marxism, Third Worldism. And even suitcase carriers. They stand at the pinnacle of white heroism. I respect them though. I wish I could respect them more, but they are already hostages of good conscience." (28)
i recommend the first two chapters in particular to any and all Westerners: "I am a criminal. But an extremely sophisticated one. I don’t have any blood on my hands. That would be too vulgar. No justice system in the world would drag me to court. I outsource my crime. [...] Between my crime and I, first there is geographic distance and then geopolitical distance. But there are also great international bodies: the UN, the IMF, NATO, multinationals, the banking system. Between my crime and I, there are national bodies: democracy, the rule of law, the Republic, the elections. Between my crime and I, there are beautiful ideas: human rights, universalism, freedom, humanism, secularism, the memory of the Shoah, feminism, Marxism, Third Worldism. And even suitcase carriers. They stand at the pinnacle of white heroism. I respect them though. I wish I could respect them more, but they are already hostages of good conscience." (28)
July 9, 2025
“Whether you like it or not, anti-Zionism will be, along with the indictment of the nation state, the primary site of this endgame. It will be the site of the historical confrontation between us, the opportunity for you to identify your real enemy. Because fundamentally it's not with us that you must be reconciled but with white people.”
June 17, 2024
third time ive read this book. bouteldja’s analysis is illuminating; im impressed at how her sophisticated lens on class and race are so applicable post-7/10, which is hardly the case with many scholars thinking through the palestinian question.
November 28, 2018
Phenomenally well written I no longer have to write anything after reading this, she has said it all, so it makes the rest of my career very simple.
July 27, 2019
Es un manifiesto descolonial para el siglo xxi, llamada a descolonizar el mundo, a reconocer que el privilegio de unos cuantos se construye sobre la opresión de muchos.
December 13, 2024
I definitely feel this is the type of book that merits discussion. A lot of my thoughts on this work are couched in my relative ignorance of the French milieu, which I understand to be markedly different in respects to feminism, decolonial/antiracist theory, etc. I have often discussed with my European friends that I suspect Western Europe has its own arrogant neuroses - about its utopic, secular humanist success story - that are very different than my American context. Bouteldja's arguments seem to support my hypothesis: the things she rails against reveal a type of liberal condescension that I recognize, but reminds me more of the liberal "havens" on the east coast than of the work I face in the deeply conservative south.
There was much to like here. Bouteldja admonishes the failures of the Left - especially its capitulation to Zionism and the neoliberal imperialist project - and advocates for international solidarity to form a 'decolonial supermajority'. Some of her best writing is around the unique role the immigrant can play in linking the struggle in the global South to the centers of neocolonial power. I had never directly considered this, but think it is a great strategic posture to take up - although I feel a little odd saying that, as I am neither indigenous nor an immigrant myself.
It's clear from reading some review that this book has been lambasted as antisemitic and homophobic. I don’t agree on the first point. Bouteldja speaks on the conditional granting of whiteness and privilege to Jews in the Western world, which is very true. The most important parts of that are its conditional nature: conditional in that it is only given because it helps assuage white guilt for its revelation of the rotten core in modernity; and conditional insofar as Jews and Jewish people can now serve as a buffer and proxy for western imperialism through the Zionist project. Bouteldja notes the specific conditions that have placed Jewish people in a very unique conundrum, and pleads with us to not link our "safety" to our mutual white oppressors but instead fight in solidarity with all oppressed peoples. Do we choose to meld with our oppressors and be used as their instruments to divide and conquer the exploited masses, or do we rise up and recognize that safety can never be secured through subjugation?
However, the author's stance on gender and sexuality is less defensible for me. I truly don't know what she was trying to say with her section comparing American double-speak with Iranian homophobia. It is not an act of decolonial liberation to deny the existence of queer Persian and Arab people in their home countries. I can't tell if I'm missing something here, as it seems to run counter to her claim of "revolutionary love" in a basic sense. Is this a translation issue? Is it pulling on French discourse I simply don't have background on? I don't know. This sort of uncertainty occurred a few times in this book. The informal style oscillated between clarity and readability in one section, and rambly and unfocused the next. This was the most egregious example where I was unable to confidently say I was even grasping her point. At best, its not a homophobic polemic, just a badly argued case: at worst, I didn't read it wrong - in which case, I'm not a fan.
Similar (but much less off-putting) asides are sprinkled through the book. Bouteldja seems to think feminism is really just for white women in her country - which, like, again, I suspect she is responding to the specific manifestations of feminism in France, but I don't know. My inclination is to read this in a forgiving light that repositions these statements more favorably to say something like: feminism in its current iterations and expressions is built primarily for white women, and has been co-opted by anti-revolutionary forces and weaponized against black and brown communities. If that's what she's saying, I fully agree; but I do not want to be putting words in Bouteldja's mouth that she did not say herself. All of this leads to an ambivalent takeaway for me - the high points of this book discussing Zionism, the unique conditional nature of Jews in the neocolonial world, and the call for international decolonial solidarity are all very powerful and well worth the read. Yet, the lows are confusing and regressive. 3.5 stars.
There was much to like here. Bouteldja admonishes the failures of the Left - especially its capitulation to Zionism and the neoliberal imperialist project - and advocates for international solidarity to form a 'decolonial supermajority'. Some of her best writing is around the unique role the immigrant can play in linking the struggle in the global South to the centers of neocolonial power. I had never directly considered this, but think it is a great strategic posture to take up - although I feel a little odd saying that, as I am neither indigenous nor an immigrant myself.
It's clear from reading some review that this book has been lambasted as antisemitic and homophobic. I don’t agree on the first point. Bouteldja speaks on the conditional granting of whiteness and privilege to Jews in the Western world, which is very true. The most important parts of that are its conditional nature: conditional in that it is only given because it helps assuage white guilt for its revelation of the rotten core in modernity; and conditional insofar as Jews and Jewish people can now serve as a buffer and proxy for western imperialism through the Zionist project. Bouteldja notes the specific conditions that have placed Jewish people in a very unique conundrum, and pleads with us to not link our "safety" to our mutual white oppressors but instead fight in solidarity with all oppressed peoples. Do we choose to meld with our oppressors and be used as their instruments to divide and conquer the exploited masses, or do we rise up and recognize that safety can never be secured through subjugation?
However, the author's stance on gender and sexuality is less defensible for me. I truly don't know what she was trying to say with her section comparing American double-speak with Iranian homophobia. It is not an act of decolonial liberation to deny the existence of queer Persian and Arab people in their home countries. I can't tell if I'm missing something here, as it seems to run counter to her claim of "revolutionary love" in a basic sense. Is this a translation issue? Is it pulling on French discourse I simply don't have background on? I don't know. This sort of uncertainty occurred a few times in this book. The informal style oscillated between clarity and readability in one section, and rambly and unfocused the next. This was the most egregious example where I was unable to confidently say I was even grasping her point. At best, its not a homophobic polemic, just a badly argued case: at worst, I didn't read it wrong - in which case, I'm not a fan.
Similar (but much less off-putting) asides are sprinkled through the book. Bouteldja seems to think feminism is really just for white women in her country - which, like, again, I suspect she is responding to the specific manifestations of feminism in France, but I don't know. My inclination is to read this in a forgiving light that repositions these statements more favorably to say something like: feminism in its current iterations and expressions is built primarily for white women, and has been co-opted by anti-revolutionary forces and weaponized against black and brown communities. If that's what she's saying, I fully agree; but I do not want to be putting words in Bouteldja's mouth that she did not say herself. All of this leads to an ambivalent takeaway for me - the high points of this book discussing Zionism, the unique conditional nature of Jews in the neocolonial world, and the call for international decolonial solidarity are all very powerful and well worth the read. Yet, the lows are confusing and regressive. 3.5 stars.
October 15, 2021
In een tijd waarin onderdrukte groepen hun stem steeds luider laten horen, gooit Houria Bouteldja (1973) meer olie op het vuur met een pleidooi tegen postkoloniale en neoliberale machtsstructuren en vóór wat zij ‘revolutionaire liefde’ noemt.
Op haar Franse Wikipediapagina is Bouteldja omschreven als een 'militante Frans-Algerijnse politica' die zich inzet voor de Indigènes de la République, een beweging die zich verzet tegen racisme en discriminatie. In Les blancs, les juifs et nous stelt ze witte privileges aan de kaak en betwist ze aannames vanuit een radicaal gelijkheidsbeeld, waarbij ze speelt met gedachten als het afschaffen van landsgrenzen. Ze keert zich niet zozeer tegen witte mensen, maar tegen hun machtspositie. In ruil voor het verdwijnen daarvan stelt ze een vrede voor, gebaseerd op respect en waardigheid.
Bouteldja richt zich op indringende wijze tot de lezer, die ze hier verdeelt in drie groepen: witte mensen, joodse mensen en niet-witte mensen. Die indeling is veel te kort door de bocht, zeker wanneer ze in termen als ‘wij’ en ‘zij’ spreekt; wie bedoelt ze eigenlijk precies? Bouteldja is zich hiervan bewust en lijkt de eenvoud te omarmen als stijltruc om haar pleidooi energieker te maken.
Les blancs, les juifs et nous laat niet zozeer een nieuw geluid horen, maar geeft uiting aan een onvrede die helaas nog door te weinig mensen wordt erkend. Ik was ervan onder de indruk, al deed de versimpelde voorstelling van zaken af aan de kracht ervan. Behalve het wij-zijdenken in wel heel grof verdeelde groepen stond ook het armzalig uitgewerkte cultuurrelativisme me tegen. Het is te begrijpen dat Bouteldja zich ertegen verzet dat westerse 'verlichte' opvattingen een claim leggen op iets als een universele waarheid en dat ze erkenning zoekt voor de plek van religie in het leven van veel mensen, maar door te suggereren dat deze zaken zonder meer voor elkaar inwisselbaar zijn, gaat ze net een stap te ver. Wat dat betreft had ik meer plezier aan Harari's 21 lessen voor de 21ste eeuw .
Op haar Franse Wikipediapagina is Bouteldja omschreven als een 'militante Frans-Algerijnse politica' die zich inzet voor de Indigènes de la République, een beweging die zich verzet tegen racisme en discriminatie. In Les blancs, les juifs et nous stelt ze witte privileges aan de kaak en betwist ze aannames vanuit een radicaal gelijkheidsbeeld, waarbij ze speelt met gedachten als het afschaffen van landsgrenzen. Ze keert zich niet zozeer tegen witte mensen, maar tegen hun machtspositie. In ruil voor het verdwijnen daarvan stelt ze een vrede voor, gebaseerd op respect en waardigheid.
La dignité, c’est se savoir responsable pour un, pour dix, pour mille. C’est notre capacité à nous aimer et à aimer cet Autre, cet irresponsable, à l’empêcher de déployer sa folie plus encore et avec lui sauver ce qui reste à sauver de ce pauvre monde.
Bouteldja richt zich op indringende wijze tot de lezer, die ze hier verdeelt in drie groepen: witte mensen, joodse mensen en niet-witte mensen. Die indeling is veel te kort door de bocht, zeker wanneer ze in termen als ‘wij’ en ‘zij’ spreekt; wie bedoelt ze eigenlijk precies? Bouteldja is zich hiervan bewust en lijkt de eenvoud te omarmen als stijltruc om haar pleidooi energieker te maken.
Les blancs, les juifs et nous laat niet zozeer een nieuw geluid horen, maar geeft uiting aan een onvrede die helaas nog door te weinig mensen wordt erkend. Ik was ervan onder de indruk, al deed de versimpelde voorstelling van zaken af aan de kracht ervan. Behalve het wij-zijdenken in wel heel grof verdeelde groepen stond ook het armzalig uitgewerkte cultuurrelativisme me tegen. Het is te begrijpen dat Bouteldja zich ertegen verzet dat westerse 'verlichte' opvattingen een claim leggen op iets als een universele waarheid en dat ze erkenning zoekt voor de plek van religie in het leven van veel mensen, maar door te suggereren dat deze zaken zonder meer voor elkaar inwisselbaar zijn, gaat ze net een stap te ver. Wat dat betreft had ik meer plezier aan Harari's 21 lessen voor de 21ste eeuw .
December 27, 2022
Found this through a recommendation, specifically chapter 3. Good polemic against whiteness's claims to universalism and manifesto for a "decolonial feminism." I think chapters 3 ("You, the Jews") and 4 ("We, Indigenous Women") are well worth reading. Bouteldja lucidly defines the irrationality of Zionism and its incompatibility with Judaism and Jewish identity. Is it provocative? To its presumed liberal audience, for sure:
"So, then, they gave you Israel. Two birds one stone: they got rid of you as pretenders to the nation and as historical revolutionaries, and made you into the most passionate defenders of the empire on Arab soil. What they did was even more vicious. They managed to make you trade your religion, your history, and your memories for a colonial ideology. You abandoned your Jewish, multi-secular identities; you despise Yiddish and Arabic and have entirely given yourselves over to the Zionist identity. In only fifty years. It is as if sorcerers had put a spell on you. Is Zionism not another name for your capitulation?"
In chapter 4, Bouteldja castigates white saviorism, states that the "radical critique of indigenous patriarchy is a luxury." Is feminism a "universal and a-temporal" struggle? No. Bouteldja writes that "as is the case with all social phenomena, feminism is situated in space and time" (the historical particular of the white woman slaveowner clearly illustrates this). Anyone familiar with "intersectionality" will get all of this, though I appreciated Bouteldja's explication of it through Islamic feminism.
Also to that review, reading Bouteldja as homophobic is myopic and illiterate. There's a very real and ambivalent contradiction between queerness and colonies, between the development of the scientia sexualis in the metropole and the colony, so on. Like, c'mon.
"So, then, they gave you Israel. Two birds one stone: they got rid of you as pretenders to the nation and as historical revolutionaries, and made you into the most passionate defenders of the empire on Arab soil. What they did was even more vicious. They managed to make you trade your religion, your history, and your memories for a colonial ideology. You abandoned your Jewish, multi-secular identities; you despise Yiddish and Arabic and have entirely given yourselves over to the Zionist identity. In only fifty years. It is as if sorcerers had put a spell on you. Is Zionism not another name for your capitulation?"
In chapter 4, Bouteldja castigates white saviorism, states that the "radical critique of indigenous patriarchy is a luxury." Is feminism a "universal and a-temporal" struggle? No. Bouteldja writes that "as is the case with all social phenomena, feminism is situated in space and time" (the historical particular of the white woman slaveowner clearly illustrates this). Anyone familiar with "intersectionality" will get all of this, though I appreciated Bouteldja's explication of it through Islamic feminism.
Also to that review, reading Bouteldja as homophobic is myopic and illiterate. There's a very real and ambivalent contradiction between queerness and colonies, between the development of the scientia sexualis in the metropole and the colony, so on. Like, c'mon.
April 23, 2025
Un texte écrit avec l'éloquence habituelle de Bouteldja, reconnaissable entre mille. Il sonne comme un puissant appel à s'unir face aux menaces fascistes, plus proches que jamais aujourd'hui en 2025, partout dans le monde. Toutefois, en tant que femme arabe, je reste dubitative face à son chapitre "Nous, femmes indigènes". Oui, c'est sûr que dans l'idéal, il faudrait que femmes et hommes indigènes s'unissent dans la lutte contre le racisme blanc, mais dans la réalité, en tant que femme indigène et immigrée on se retrouve à lutter contre deux systèmes patriarcaux: blanc ET indigène, et ce qu'on le veuille ou non. Peut-être que je n'ai pas suffisamment de recul à cause de mon expérience personnelle, mais aussi peut-être parce que je suis en profond désaccord avec la thèse qu'elle amène sur le féminisme, comme quoi ce serait une invention occidentale. Je pense à l'autrice féministe égyptienne Nawal El Saadawi, qui a lutté contre ce préjugé en rappelant que le patriarcat avait des racines partout. Et forcément, là où il y a oppression (patriarcat), il y a résistance (luttes féministes).
July 27, 2019
Many of the paragraphs and thoughts of Bouteldja's book are really fascinating and thought-provoking. The only thing I didn't like was that I had a tough time connecting these thoughts to her "revolutionary love" argument. She speaks of how it is borrowed, but I couldn't really find her elocution of a new and revolutionary meaning of love.
Apparently Bouteldja is under a lot of attacks for purported anti-semitism and homophobia. I didn't identify any of that. She identified the shaky foundations of Zionism, and made critiques of the Enlightenment's racist foundation, but...that's nothing you don't hear in an upper-level undergraduate course. Sure, she writes more angrily than an academic but that doesn't mean she's by any means incorrect.
The book reads more as a series of essays than one corpus. Which is fine, honestly, they're great essays. I am not quite sure what she was building up to, but that could/should be more on me than on her.
Apparently Bouteldja is under a lot of attacks for purported anti-semitism and homophobia. I didn't identify any of that. She identified the shaky foundations of Zionism, and made critiques of the Enlightenment's racist foundation, but...that's nothing you don't hear in an upper-level undergraduate course. Sure, she writes more angrily than an academic but that doesn't mean she's by any means incorrect.
The book reads more as a series of essays than one corpus. Which is fine, honestly, they're great essays. I am not quite sure what she was building up to, but that could/should be more on me than on her.
April 30, 2020
Le livre est, pour le dire très simplement, un pamphlet contre les blancs, en tant que groupe social privilégié et colonisateur. Pourquoi Meh ? Parce que j'ai trouvé intéressant sa façon de décrire comment les occidentaux ont cherché d'obtenir le consentement des populations racisées tout en maintenant leur distinction dans le temps (pendant la colonisation et pendant la néocolonialisation) et l'espace (dichotomie Nord Sud), et comment cette organisation porte les germes de sa destruction, destruction que Bouteldja souhaite.
Néanmoins, il y a pas mal de passages du texte qui me dérangent, que le plan individuel (homophobie par exemple) que le plan structurel (faire primer la lutte antiraciste sur le reste). Donc je suis plutôt dubitatif mais je suis pas forcément le mieux placé pour juger de la pertinence de ce genre de lecture.
Néanmoins, il y a pas mal de passages du texte qui me dérangent, que le plan individuel (homophobie par exemple) que le plan structurel (faire primer la lutte antiraciste sur le reste). Donc je suis plutôt dubitatif mais je suis pas forcément le mieux placé pour juger de la pertinence de ce genre de lecture.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews