People need to trouble their liberal (mis)understanding and (mis)use of identity. Here's an example:

Tomasa Yarhui is an indigenous Quechua political "voice" from Bolivia. She's also a center-right Christian Democrat, here mourning the death of a violent coup-supporting cop. https://twitter.com/TomasaYarhui/status/1194301813710819339

For some, like craven coup-supporter @clairefrwordley, this is what "listening to a Bolivian indigenous voice" might look like. And that's true. If, of course, you don't consider ideology at all relevant.

One could, I suppose, tick off all their personal, liberalized identity grocery list boxes on the *correct voices* to "listen to" and find Tomasa Yarhui.

√ indigenous Quechua
√ Bolivian
√ woman

But Tomasa was a minister in narco-dictator Hugo Banzer's own protege's - IMF/World Bank consultant and former Bolivian Vice President & President Tuto Quiroga's - regime. She also ran alongside him in 2014. https://www.eldiario.net/noticias/2014/2014_07/nt140711/politica.php?n=87&-tomasa-yarhui-y-jorge-quiroga-conforman-el-binomio-por-pdc

When someone says "listen to x voices" without admitting that these voices have complicated *intersections* behind them and *ideologies* that emerge out of those experiences and shape how those voices envision their world - they're always selling something.

Here's another example and one I'm far more sympathetic to (which is really what we're all doing when we "listen to x" on anything.) This is longtime anarcha-feminist Maria Galindo on recent events in Bolivia: https://www.lavaca.org/portada/bolivia-la-noche-de-los-cristales-rotos-por-maria-galindo/

It doesn't fit neatly into a pro-MAS/Morales or a "pro-this-was-not-a-coup-but-peaceful-protest" narrative, either. It's highly critical of Morales and MAS while also terrified of the violent rightwing frenzy unleashed in recent days.

Now, I can know Maria Galindo has done a lifetime of serious work as an anarchist in Bolivia. But I can also know she comes from an upper class family (her own brother was a minister in a rightwing government.) So I take all that into consideration when reading her analysis.

And I share it with you anyway, because it's an important perspective *to me.* Even if, for me, I've determined *my* role is to be *more critical* of my own massive, world-scorching superstate (the USA) than other states actively in its sights.

But what many of us are doing when we claim to be "listening to x" #onhere - if we're brave enough to admit it - is amplifying voices that are already in harmony with our own worldview. Or, perhaps more generously, trying to learn & bring ourselves into harmony with theirs.

As someone who tries to spend most of their time on here sharing other people's thoughts and ideas, I can say that I'm trying my best to learn from them all. But a lot of times, what I'm doing is amplifying things I agree with said by people in communities other than my own.

Fuck if social media itself isn't tailor-made for this. That's what "likes" and "reactions" and "shares" have always been about. That's why professionals painstakingly still say, "RT's not endorsements" in their stupid, blue-checked bios.

Ideally, I'm learning from them. Letting them speak for themselves. Using this tiny platform I have to give them more attention so others hear them, too. But it would be a lie to say I'm not filtering them through my own perspective as a conduit in this space.

I'm trying to amplify anarchist and communist perspectives. In that mission, of course I'm going to tend toward voices that reflect my own conceptions of what those ideologies have to say about any topic. How could it not?

But I'm also *engaging with them* in a huge conversation because... wait for it... they're fucking humans just like I am and nobody owns the one, shiny single-bullet for how to make the world immediately just and equitable for all of us.

I would really doubt the sincerity of anyone who suggests they are entirely neutral (what human being doesn't have their own ideas?) and acting as good-faith amplifiers of "voices." And I think that entire project is liberal bullshit, easily weaponized by power itself.

Do I agree with everything I share? Hell no. Or everything someone I have shared in the past says later or has said before? Of course not.

At least I'm willing to be honest about what I'm trying to do. You aren't going to get that from people who are trying to shut down conversations using "stop speaking over x" or "listen to x voices."

They're committed to a far different project.

Update | Jhanisse Vaca Daza is *actually* a direct descendant of a 19th Century, military-coup-installed former President of Bolivia. Her claim here then is... interesting: https://twitter.com/OLAASM/status/1194708061870538758