Destroying Anti-Roma Hate Speech, One Brick At a Time

 

(Michael, Łukasz, Kasia Balas)

 

The Roma (also known as Romani) community represents one of the most marginalized minority groups in Poland, and is one of the greatest recipients of both on- and offline hate speech. Admittedly, however, our group was not thrilled to have anti-Romani hate speech as our project topic for our social media campaigns. Immediately, we saw two major challenges:

1.)    Although they experience some of the most hate speech, the Roma people account for less than 0.01% of the Polish population. Connected to this fact, the most recent nationwide research on hate speech showed that most Polish youth and adults think of Roma as insignificant; they hear and see a considerable amount of this hate speech on social media and in everyday interactions, but do not find such comments or beliefs as problematic. 

2.)    Given that the Roma community is largely unique to European – particularly Eastern European – culture, it would be difficult to build a multi-national audience for our campaign. Outreach to any networks or social media participants in the United States, for example, would likely yield poor results due to very limited knowledge of the Roma population. 

These concerns left more questions than answers: What type of effective campaign could we create given the previously mentioned challenges? How were we going to build an active following, and who would they be? How much could we actually accomplish with less than one week to brainstorm, implement and evaluate the results of our campaign? 

In other words, we simply didn’t know what to do.

Fortunately, however, all three of our group members were bursting with creativity. In fact, one of our greatest challenges was simplifying our ideas to actually accomplish something meaningful within the six-day time parameter. We started with abstract metaphors such as connecting the removal of hate speech in society to doing laundry. We even thought of doing short videos, photo shoots, and a small press event inviting Polish media (yes, we thought that big). 

Ultimately, we narrowed our ideas down, and “Bez Murow” (Without Walls) was born. Our theme focused on how hate speech builds walls of divisiveness and injustice – similar to the ghetto walls that once contained some of the Roma people during the Holocaust. Using the motif of brick walls, the campaign aimed to raise awareness about this particular injustice and to challenge Poles to destroy the walls of hate. Given the aforementioned challenges, we decided to make the campaign specific to Polish citizens. It was designed to be a purely online effort using a Facebook page and memes showing primarily young Facebook users the unethical and frequent use of anti-Roma hate speech. 

Our logo would include a heart – similar to that of the No Hate Speech Movement already present in Poland – featuring the Roma flag inside of it (seen above). The first meme used the brick wall thematic concept in the background, while also showing the hateful comments about Roma that Poles search for on Google (many use the politically incorrect and offensive term of “Gypsie,” producing search suggestions and results such as “Gypsies are thieves,” “Gypsies are dirty,” etc.) – similar to a concept used by a UN Campaign against sexism. The rest of our memes took on the forms of presenting research data about anti-Roma hate speech in Poland using the latest report on the subject. 

Within the first two days, we reached our project goal of obtaining 1,500 views on our Facebook page for Bez Murow. After more outreach to anti-hate speech groups as well as buying Facebook page promotions, we reached over 36,000 views and engaged over 2,000 people in likes, comments, and shares of our various posts. We even took our message to the streets of Warsaw, chalking our Facebook page website on sidewalk along with our campaign tagline “Bez Murow”, and passing out pamphlets displaying our memes.

We were quite pleased with the results, along with the discussions and interactions – both supportive and non-supportive – that occurred on our Facebook page. With more time, however, we would focus greater attention on making our memes more personable and provocative to share and go viral, and consult more members of the Roma community in Warsaw for constructive input and collaboration. We believe that the minorities being affected should take the most ownership over efforts such as these; thus, we hope that the few Roma NGOs we connected with will take our research and ideas and use them to their own advantage to defeat the walls of hate in Poland, one brick at a time. 

Being in a group with the responsibility of creating a social campaign about LGBTQ hate speech issues in Poland in one week and reaching 1,500 people.

(Dylan, Andrzej, Anna)

As an American fellow, those words and that phrase scared me. As an American fellow, group work doesn’t come easy: I talk a lot and I don’t easily trust others with actually doing their work.

As an American fellow, I’m still not fully comfortable with commenting about Poland and their political issues. Like every other country, their relationship status on Facebook is complicated. I also don’t have much experience creating a social campaign or researching LGBTQ issues.

And, all this in one week? Fuhgeddaboudit![i]

But actually, for real, this worked out. Here’s why: my group was awesome!

With Andrzej Mikołajewski reppin[ii] Poland with his campaign experience and Anna Mykytenko reppin Ukraine with her artistic talents and (most importantly) patience, I quickly realized our diversity and talents were our greatest strength.

Faith Bosworth, straight outta[iii] Peng Collective in Berlin, was our mentor for the week. Her creativity, enthusiasm, and cool demeanor rubbed off on us. That first day, she stirred our imaginations to think of utopia (and dystopia, but why focus on the negative?) in relation to our issue, and make an advertisement about it.

Well, actually. To tell you the truth, my group’s imagination wasn’t all that stirred. The other group’s, yeah, sure. My group? For those allotted 20 minutes, we struggled. I kept thinking of dystopia, Andrzej kept over-thinking positivity, and Anna kept thinking of overly preachy messages.

At the last minute (literally), we finally agreed on something. There would be a split screen: black and white, thunderstorms and sunshine, football hooligans and a lot of gay people. God would be atop presiding. The gay people would be pleasantly walking to the football stands, and the football hooligans would be attempting to ruin their moment. But, every attempt the hooligans would do something hooligany, God would change it to something polar opposite.

Hooligans throw a rock? The rock becomes a flower. Gay people get happier and closer, and the hooligans more frustrated. Hooligans curse and say “Fuck you!”? The phrase becomes “I love you!” Gay people get happier and closer, and the hooligans more frustrated. The hooligans try to throw a punch? God intervenes and makes it a hug.

Then the scene becomes colorful with a rainbow (of course) and the hooligans become gay (as in, happy). And the slogan, “Imagine a world without hate” appears.

Preposterous idea. But guess what, it worked. Fellow fellows were laughing and some told me it actually made them think, for a moment, about a happier world.

My group and I learned a lesson that day: chill.[iv] Let the imagination and ideas flow, don’t take yourself too seriously. What matters is connection with the audience, telling a story, prompting some thought about the issues, and leading them to action. Yes, LGBTQ hate speech issues are very serious; they are deadly. But, if you want to connect and make people move, you don’t necessarily need to be uptight.

This momentum carried over. This time, our idea took five minutes. Boom.[v] We collaborated and created a Facebook-like, infographic-ish[vi] thing detailing hate speech in the LGBTQ community. Anna drew it legit, Andrzej read Polish the way his grandmomma[vii] taught him, and I told people what to do.

This Facebook-like, infographic-ish thing morphed into our campaign. We targeted our target group: neutral and passive supporters, youth, and Facebook users with LGBTQ friends. We targeted the hate speech at a specific place: the internet. And we had a message: stand up for your LGBTQ friends because a lot of people already support LGBTQ people (over 75%). Aka, it’s already cool to be a nice guy toward the LGBTQ community, so, become one.

So we had the idea. And everything went smooth. And now I’ll stop writing this blog post. …. Right? … … Nope.

We hit some walls. Andrzej wanted every meme to show the audience an example of positive behavior; I thought it was more powerful to show a void. Anna thought the comments were too mean; Andrzej thought they were, if anything, soft.[viii] I thought we should expand the idea into an interactive space; no one agreed with me. I can go on, but my head would explode.

But we compromised. We made two memes with positive behavior and two memes with a void; we softened some comments and kept others; and we definitely did not make the page interactive. The egos of Andrzej and I should be an exhibit at the museum, but Anna’s listening and patience made us into boy scouts.[ix]

With the creative walls vanquished, we had another problem: we aren’t graphically designed inclined.

I took a computer class my senior year of high school but it was my senior year of high school. Totally forgot it. Shout out and sorry to Mr. Chiafulio.

But we were saved. This time, by Hannes, also straight outta Peng Collective in Berlin. This guy helped eight other groups with their graphics and made them all look legit.[x] He is amazing and has an impressive beard.

Through being in a fake relationship with Hannes (which somehow generated 30 likes on Facebook) and checking into a gay club in Warsaw, I enabled our group to produce screenshots for him to edit.

Then the question came, where would these memes go. Yes, mom, they would go on the world wide web. But, where? Website? Facebook page? Psh, no. Let’s give them to NGOs in Poland!

Oh, what a heart-warming, selfless idea. Just one problem. It was a holiday weekend. We reached out to a few organizations, and they all thought the memes were awesome, but they were also about to go on vacation. Thus, none actually had the time to officially approve our memes.

We were annoyed for about 20 minutes. Then, Andrzej played soccer with his brother and I left the hostel for the botanical gardens. Anna, once again, stepped up. Her, along with help from Andrzej, created the Facebook page, titled it “Dobre towarzystwo” (“Good Company”) and spread it.

Two days later, we – WE – surpassed the HIA goal of 1,500 people reached.

Now, I’m no longer scared to express my humanity in actions that will spread love.

Thanks. Good bye. Dylan.

---

[i] According to Urban Dictionary, “fuhgeddaboudit” means “1. Forget about it - the issue is not worth the time, energy, mental effort, or emotional resources. 2. Definitively ‘no.’” The term is almost never used, but associated with Italian-Americans in New York City, New Jersey and Boston. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuhgeddaboudit

[ii] According to Urban Dictionary, “reppin” means “to represent something or some place.” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Reppin

[iii] According to Urban Dictionary, “outta” means “out of.” Within this context, it is indicating the origin of the subject. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=outta

[iv] According to Urban Dictionary, “chill” means “1. To calm down.” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Chill

[v] According to Urban Dictionary, “boom” is a word that can be utilized as an “oral exclamation mark but in a purely conversational context. Its function is not as heightened as the afore mentioned symbol so its impact is designed to simply reinforce ones point or statement. Generally found in light hearted, but not overtly humorous, situations.” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Boom

[vi] According to Urban Dictionary, “ish” means “kind of/sort of, usually added onto the end of a word or phrase.” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ish

[vii] I made this word up. “Grandmomma” was coined to describe someone’s grandmother. Officially penned by Dylan Kitts in June 2014, the word “grandmomma” has its origins in the black vernacular term “momma.” The word “momma” is utilized to express the word “mother”, or, “mom”. 

[viii] According to Urban Dictionary, “soft” means “some one who is weak and feable.” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soft

[ix] According to Urban Dictionary, “boy scout” is “one who does everything according to the rules.” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boy+scout

[x] According to Urban Dictionary, “legit” is a “modern synonym for words such as ‘cool’, ‘ill’, ‘tight’, or ‘dope’. Used to describe a noun that is of a particularly excellent quality.”

The “Who Is Asking?” Campaign

(Adrienne, Julia, Kathrin)

Bring the Campaign to the People!

Change begins with questioning the status quo.

It has been a whirlwind week with the Who Is Asking campaign. In six days we designed, printed, and pasted 90 anti-homophobia posters all over Warsaw; spray painted a No Hate Speech Footpath in Pole Mokotowskie (Warsaw’s major public park); got nearly 900 visitors on our website; and reached over 2,000 people throughsocial media.

In choosing to implement our campaign primarilyin public spaces, our team tookthe difficult task of creating a “mini online social media campaign”and made it even more difficult.Wedid this because we believed the best way to make an impact given our short time limit was to bring our campaign to the people instead of asking them to come to us online.

Part one of our project was a poster campaign. Because most Poles do not even know what the term LGBTQ means, we had to somehow personalize the issue and make it understandable in common terms. Our posters posed simple but provocative questions like “Can love be disgusting?” “What makes you a woman/man?” and “When did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?” The goal was to encourage people to question the dominant narrative about gender and sexuality. This could be the first step towards understanding and acceptance of LGBTQ people. We spent almost six hours one day running around Warsaw, wheat pasting our posters everywhere. It felt good to do some guerrilla activism for the first time.

Part two of our campaign was the No Hate Speech Footpath in Pole Mokotowskie. After a few setbacks with rainy weather, we finally put our plan into action on Sunday. Luckily for us it was a beautiful day and many people were there. We attracted a lot of attention in the process of writing and spray painting, and people’s reactions were surprisingly positive. Not one person said something negative to us, even though our message was explicitly about hate speech against non-heterosexual people. We even recruited some real life fans who stayed with us through the afternoon and told passers by to visit our website. The most heartwarming thing was to see parents encouraging their children to read each message aloud as they walked through the path together.

All the elements of our campaign came together on our website (WhoIsAsking.pl), where we provided explanations about each poster and statistics on discrimination against LGBTQ individuals in Poland. We have a slideshow page with photos of our actions around the city, and all our campaign content is copyright free so that people everywhere can share them through social media and even implement their own public campaign.

Over all, Julia, Kathrin and I are really happy with how our campaign turned out. We did the most with our week as a team.Despite our ambitious plans and long days, we never lost steam and managed to laugh even during the low points. Now,whenever we pass by one of our postersor otherHiA fellows tell us they spotted one, it feels like a small achievement.

While our website and Facebook statistics are fun to keep track of, the real achievement for the Who Is Asking team is knowing that hundreds of Warsaw residents will see our posters and our footpath over the coming days and weeks. We’ve left our mark on this city. Our hope is that this campaign will inspire other activiststo implement the samein their own cities around the world.

It is Time for ACTION!

by Łukasz Niparko, HIA Fellow

The days between June 16^th and June 18^th moved us into action! The output phase is now in
a full swing. There is surely exciting way in front of us to go and an unprecedented chance to stir the discussion about the hate speech concerning at the same time Roma, Jews, LGBTQ community, and migrants as well as refugees coming to Poland. Has anyone done it before in Poland? Here we are: “Humanity in Action”!

To make things possible we created eight groups of fellows. Each group became simultaneously
a think-tank, a design company, and the as agora of ideas producing such approaches to counter the hate speech as building a symbolic common house for migrants and refugees coming to Poland; culture jamming; outdoors campaign; and much more. It also seems that the film production became a very popular tool for our groups – that changed for instance some of our good fellows into “football hooligans”; yet only for couple of hours of filming.

During these days we had with us Faith Bosworth and Hannes Boettger from the Collective “Peng!” in Berlin. They, together with the HiA Poland staff, helped us to further our ideas and facilitated us in moving our “sketches” into professional graphics and web-design. After hours of brainstorming, and crossing out ideas, while polishing others, we have launched our campaigns – now you can find them online, like them, support them, and get inspired by them. Take a stand on it!

In our discussions we were wondering about the sustainability of them, and we truly hope that we can impact YOU! And expose YOU to something you might not think about before. And on the top of everything to encourage YOU to action. As the poet said: “although the words are not make from stone they can shake the bones!.”* We use the words every day (also in the online sphere), and since we do it, there is always the potential that some might be misused. The words of hate speech are as a matter of fact a crime and a serious violation of basic human rights – that is why, we are here to prevent such from happening. That is why it is very important to support our projects, especially in a reality in which most of the teenagers in Poland faces hate speech expressed towards minorities on a daily basis both on- and offline.

Although, the “input phase” facilitated the intake of information about the “hottest problems” regarding the phenomenon of the hate speech in the public sphere in Poland as well as the presentation of various data. It is the “output phase” that moves the words into action. Speaking of action, on Wednesday, we had also a chance to present our ideas for the “action projects” that we plan to do once the fellowship is over. Yet, it looks like this will not mean an end to our experiences from Warsaw, but rather a new beginning, especially taking into account the ideas presented by the fellows for local change in the communities back home, such as: striving for improvement of sanitation for women living in Nepal; revitalizing abandoned places in Detroit; and connecting the Polish youth living in Warsaw and the Israeli youth coming to Warsaw for tours.

To conclude, as once someone said “the peace [and a better world] we seek is not in some distant land, but within us and in our actions…” There is not one recipe for change, yet there are many paths that the change can be brought to reality. Surely, nothing happens without the acknowledgment of the problem as the hate speech is, and discussion on it. Our memes do that and even more than that – they invite to action. After all, we are “Humanity in Action”!

*“Słowo, choć nie z głazu, może rozbić kości, chociaż nie jest z głazu. Złego więc wyrazu chroń się, zwłaszcza w złości słowo, choć nie z głazu, może rozbić kości.”

Analyzing Slactivism

by Sudip Bhandari, HIA Fellow

A senior HIA fellow from the US once shared with me his blog entry, where he vehemently argued that social movements happen because real people move; in real time; in real space. He was directing his frustration towards many social media campaigns, like Kony 2012, which created massive Internet sensations but failed to achieve practical solutions. His blog entry created a paradigm shift in my perception of the importance or lack there of, of social media like Facebook in creating substantial social change. I doubted the efficacy of #bringbackourgirls campaign, a Twitter hullabaloo that aimed in generating enough public pressure so that the Nigerian government would act to bring back 200 Nigerian school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. I doubted if the online petitions would be enough to change the law to restrict gun usage in the United States. I doubted if online video campaigns would incite appropriate changes in the environmental policies to tackle climate change. I came to HIA Poland with these doubts, and today, I was forced to reevaluate my skepticisms.

HIA fellows and I entered a contemplative discussion with Chris Worman, the director of TechSoupGlobal, which helps Non-Governmental Organizations get better acquainted with new technology and software. We conversed on issues varying from the importance of memes, to the reasons for failure of Occupy Wall Street movement. What caught my attention the most was when he argued that some social media campaigns in societies that lack freedom of expression, do have immense political meaning. While he underscored the importance of real human connection, which virtual world cannot provide, he criticized the author Malcolm Gladwell who downplays Slactivists. Slactivism, as Wikipedia defines it, is “…a pejorative term that describes "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it take satisfaction from the feeling they have contributed.” So, changing one’s Facebook profile picture to Kony 2012 poster would be slactivism. Tweeting #bringbackourgirls would be slactivism too. Social media provide space for the general population to demonstrate frustration or take a political stance, which according to slactivism concept provides them with “fake” sense of creating a change. Slactivism, in essence does not create any social capital. Chris, to my surprise believes otherwise. He believes that the concept of Slactivism as something that generates no political value is ethnocentric. Unlike the United States, where everyone enjoys the freedom of expression, countries like Turkey strip its population of such rights. Countries like Egypt have authoritarian governments that deny congregation of people. In such situations, a “Like” on a Facebook page or a “Retweet” on Twitter post for a pro-democratic campaign can send enormous political message to the oppressive regimes. In Uganda, where engaging in a same sex relationship leads one to a life long prison, a grass root online video campaign in favor of same sex marriage can be revolutionary. Comments, Likes, Shares and Online Petitions might not topple such regimes, but they can definitely prove to be a small stepping-stone towards that reality.

            As I struggle to conclude my thoughts on my position of whether I truly doubt the power of social campaigns, I eagerly look forward to our group projects of creating memes to address hate speech online. Will our campaign stop hate speech? Probably not! But, I believe it could prove to be a symbolic way to demonstrate our willingness for a positive social change.

             

Figure caption: Chris Worman shares his insights on social media campaigns.

Are you up for thinking along with me about preventive politics of education?

By Kathrin Fischer, HIA Fellow

“The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he (sic!) is one who asks the right questions.”

(Claude Levi-Strauss)

Today we were not only provided the possibility to talk with and to see the Museum of the History of Polish Jews with the enthusiastic Piotr Kowalik, the Head of the Educational Department of the Museum, we also discussed minority rights with Dr. Sebastian Rejak who is Special Envoy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Relations with the Jewish Diaspora. In the afternoon, we were honored to listen to Maciej Kozłowski’s story about Jan Karski, and, on a very different note, we finished the day with Jacek Purski from the Never Again Association.

Watching the architecture of the Museum of the History of Polish Jews with Piotr Kowalik

In the spirit of Claude Levi-Strauss, I would like to share a few questions that were raised in today’s lectures on the prevention against discrimination and hate speech via long-term education, human rights policy, monitoring and reporting, and individual people’s actions.

What do we want to prevent? What does the discrimination-to-be-prevented consist of and why so? How can we bridge the collective pressure to repetitively praise well-meaning and established concepts such as freedom and equality and the necessity to spell out otherwise empty word shells? Is collective reflection a form of prevention?

 

Looking at the model of the wooden synagogue that once stood in Gwoździec and has been re-created for the Core Exhibition of the Museum opening in October 2014

What do we need to know from the past to learn about preventive actions in the future? Who will teach (or: tell the stories) about the past and who is reached? With whom can we go for educational walks and read the (existing) historical archives? At what age should children learn preventive action against discrimination including being exposed to the oftentimes horrifying and destabilizing acts of discrimination?

 

Listening to Piotr Kowalik during the walk in the museum

Who is it who prevents discrimination (against whom) and how do ‘preventors’ contribute to the discrimination (against other ‘others’)? And is there someone to prevent discrimination against those who do not have an institutionalized voice? Do we prevent discrimination for ‘our’ sake or for the sake of ‘others’? Who are we speaking for and who are we speaking with? Are we preaching to the choir or do we invite more choristers?

Listening to Maciej Kozłowski and his stories about Jan Karski

Do we prevent what happened in the past or do we prevent what we fear to happen in the future? Who will be discriminated against in 50 years? Are we preventing the discrimination in front of our eyes or are we preventing potential discrimination that is happening/will happen (elsewhere/at another time)?

How can we understand commemoration as a form of prevention of discrimination? How can we commemorate and build up a common identity around history without losing the (conflicting) polyphony of historical voices and representations? How do we strike a balance between the commodification and/or political instrumentalization of commemoration on the one hand, and meaningful prevention of discrimination through building a collective memory on the other hand?

 

Bench of Jan Karski in front of the Museum of the History of Polish Jews

Whom are we reporting discrimination and how can we avoid double-victimization through the very act of reporting or by the addressee of the report? How can organizations build coalitions for the prevention of discrimination without being trapped in organizational insecurities, competitive behaviors or non-interference issues?  How do we reconcile creating citizens’ awareness on laws and rights, when laws themselves have the capacity of creating spaces of illegality and categorical discrimination?

 

Listening to the talk of Jacek Purski on racism in Polish football stadiums

How can we support prevention of group-based discrimination without perpetuating the classification? How can we avoid rankings of discriminated groups and competitive victimization but build coalitions across and beyond identities? Are those discriminated against more likely to participate in preventing further discrimination, why so? How can we engage in incremental preventive actions at a grassroots level without individualizing structural disadvantage?

How can we strike a balance between looking at the processes by which discrimination and the assignment of categories operate, and preventing discrimination by resisting regimes of normalcy and construction of otherness?