(Photo: Avanguardie.info Web Magazine/Flickr)

The degree of racism in a country is an indicator for the level of its internal crisis. In Italy, where this rate is rising dangerously, it is necessary to continue along the route marked by the events of the first of March, day of the first strike of migrants.
By Stefania Ragusa, president of Primo Marzo 2010.
Translation by Alberto Stella.

The success of the migrants' strike and demonstrations of March 1st cannot be merely measured in numbers, even if the 60 territorial committees that arose in a few weeks, the 300,000 people who reclaimed the streets, the hundreds of factories in which strikes actually took place, are all evidences and measurable facts that fill us with satisfaction. The real success of this remarkable day consists in having produced a change of perspective on anti-racist discourse, stressing that this cannot be separated from the defense of collective rights, concerning everyone in equal measure, and not just Italians. Racism not only directly affects migrants, but also those who immigrants are not at all or no longer (the second generation, for example) but who are still looked upon as "outsiders". In a less direct way, racism affects all of us, and not simply for emotional or ethical reasons. It involves everyone because, as history testifies, racism has a precise political function: to divert focus from real problems, to confuse and break down social cohesion redirecting rage and frustration towards false targets. The degree of racism of a nation, particularly when it concerns institutions, could be regarded as an index of the crisis of the nation itself. In Italy this rate is rising dangerously, as opinion polls and researches continue to highlight.

Violations of rights, even when not explicitly racist, concern migrants for they threaten and undermine the bond of the society in which they live. We talk frequently about the necessity of promoting the visibility and representation of migrant – as if it were another market advertisement. But this very visibility and this very representation should ignore the logic of markets and of strategic positioning, and it should instead be the consequence of direct engagement of migrants themselves in the reflections and difficulties that concern every citizen on a daily basis. The movement Primo Marzo 2010 was animated by these premises and has the aspiration, among others, of explaining and of letting people internalise these concepts. Only at these conditions will it be possible to effectively overcome, not just in propagandistic slogans or formal words, the contraposition between “us” and “them”, between “Italians” and “foreigners”, which anchors us to deceiving antithetic positions.

The first of March has demonstrated other important aspects: that there can be no copyrighton constitutional and legal protest strategies, and that in Italy, notwithstanding the cultural atrophy and the spreading racism, there exists a civil society which resists, reacts and is ready to get involved. At this point, phase two has started: it is characterised both by the reconstruction of the movement, which must assume a clearer and more functional form in order to cope with the next challenges, and by a revival of cultural dialogue. This cannot be limited to debates and film screenings consumed only by those who already have anti-racist positions. A revival of cultural dialogue means to get ready, both theoretically and psycologically, to let all those Italians who still are not on the same wave as we are to come together with the migrants who have not heard of March First. It means to invent new relationships, to build opportunities for unusual involvement. At the same time, we must initiate a serious political discourse: we have to build a unique platform to pressure all those political parties and forces who declared to agree with our project.

Our territorial committees are already elaborating proposals but, whereas the critical areas on which to work are easy to point out (the current migration legislation, citizenship requirements, second generations, administrative vote, duration of residence permits, rejections and the so-called ‘identification and deportation centers’, etc.), less obvious is the decision over priorities and modalities of intervention. The fundamental point is to avoid fragmentation and to stay united. Concerning future actions, finally, it is necessary to have another event as soon as possible, moving towards that date with the same hybrid spirit that has guided us so far: old and new citizens together, sharing the fact of living in the same localities and of refusing exclusionary logics and racism. We cannot afford to scatter the legacy gathered. “March First does not finish, March First begins” should not remain merely a slogan.