Red Onion Prisoners Unite in a Hunger Strike Protesting Abuse

Ten Demands of ROSP Hunger Strikers

We (Prisoners at Red Onion State Prison) demand

the right to an adequate standard of living while in

the custody of the state!

1. We demand fully cooked food, and access to a better quality of fresh fruit
and vegetables. In addition, we demand increased portions on our trays,
which allows us to meet our basic nutritional needs as defined by VDOC
regulations.
2. We demand that every prisoner at ROSP have unrestricted access to
complaint and grievance forms and other paperwork we may request.
3. We demand better communication between prisoners and higher ] ranking
guards. Presently, higher ]ranking guards invariably take the lower ]ranking
guards’ side in disputes between guards and prisoners, forcing the prisoner to
act out in order to be heard. We demand that higher ] ranking guards take
prisoner complaints and grievances into consideration without prejudice.
4. We demand an end to torture in the form of indefinite segregation through
the implementation of a fair and transparent process whereby prisoners can
earn the right to be released from segregation. We demand that prison
officials completely adhere to the security point system, insuring that
prisoners are transferred to institutions that correspond with their particular
security level.
5. We demand the right to an adequate standard of living, including access to
quality materials that we may use to clean our own cells. Presently, we are
forced to clean our entire cell, including the inside of our toilets, with a single
sponge and our bare hands. This is unsanitary and promotes the spread of
disease ]carrying bacteria.
6. We demand the right to have 3rd party neutral observers visit and
document the condition of the prisons to ensure an end to the corruption
amongst prison officials and widespread human rights abuses of prisoners.
Internal Affairs and Prison Administrator’s monitoring of prison conditions
have not alleviated the dangerous circumstances we are living under while in
custody of the state which include, but are not limited to: the threat of undue
physical aggression by guards, sexual abuse and retaliatory measures, which
violate prison policies and our human rights.
7. We demand to be informed of any and all changes to VDOC/IOP policies as
soon as these changes are made.
8. We demand the right to adequate medical care. Our right to medical care is
guaranteed under the eight amendment of the constitution, and thus the
deliberate indifference of prison officials to our medical needs constitutes a
violation of our constitutional rights. In particular, the toothpaste we are
forced to purchase in the prison is a danger to our dental health and causes
widespread gum disease and associated illnesses.
9. We demand our right as enumerated through VDOC policy, to a monthly
haircut. Presently, we have been denied haircuts for nearly three months. We
also demand to have our razors changed out on a weekly basis. The current
practice of changing out the razors every three weeks leaves prisoners
exposed to the risk of dangerous infections and injury.
10. We demand that there be no reprisals for any of the participants in the
Hunger Strike. We are simply organizing in the interest of more humane living
conditions.

www.Freedomarchives.org

The need to evaluate root causes

Recently, I watched Wendell Berry speak at the 2012 Jefferson Lecture (the text of the lecture is located here). I wanted to see Berry because I have found many of his works inspiring and poignant for me in the past, but listening to this lecture, I found myself becoming more and more upset about what was missing.

First I want to acknowledge that Berry talked about many relevant and important issues. I do not mean to discount his importance as a writer. This post is in response to the failings that exist within many social justice movements, not just Wendell Berry’s writings. Unless we address these unspoken issues as relevant and inextricably tied to environmentalism (and human liberation in general), we will never be able to fully understand the root causes of exploitation and oppression.

In his lecture, Berry called for us to return to affection, personal connections, and community. He warned that technology was leading us away from personal interactions and making it much easier for us to abuse one another. I agree with these statements, but I feel that they need to be pushed further:

Affection is not enough:

At my previous job at a domestic violence organization, it became obvious that affection did not end oppression. Many of the humans who abused my clients were emotionally attached and affectionate towards their partners. They enjoyed their partners, but they also held tightly to power and control over them.

In the same context I have had many men show “affection” for me in a way that actively minimizes my opinion and agency as a human being. In fact, I think that it is extremely dangerous to view affection as the solution to our issues without deeply evaluating power dynamics within society. For example, affection has lead to many harmful, but well intentioned, efforts to help others.

I would strongly argue for the important feminine qualities of sensitivity, compassion, and empathy. Affection, on the other hand, feels like a patronizing term, I think of someone in power showing affection towards someone they view as less powerful. While I don’t think this is exactly what Berry had in mind, feel that Berry’s focus on affection oversimplified a very complex and messy issue. I don’t believe that compassion and empathy can fully exist until we create a society where everyone has power (especially in making decisions that affect their lives) and also where everyone’s feelings and experience are viewed as necessary and valid.

It is necessary to view modern social justice issues through a lens that understands our history of racism/sexism/abilism/etc:

In Berry’s lecture, he warned that technology is disconnecting us from others and allowing us to cause destruction much easier and on a much larger scale then ever before. Berry called for us to return to a smaller economy and personal interactions without the impersonal division of technology. He argued that affection is lost as we move to larger and larger scales.

I think that these are important statements, but I believe that we create technology to fit our desires. Modern technology was created within a specific social context that also needs to be addressed.

While the technology that we have created brings different challenges then in the past, it often simply magnifies issues that have been present throughout American history. Modern technology comes out of a society that is seeping with individualist, colonial, patriarchal, and racist tendencies.

We need to also consider America’s historical context (I am qualifying it to America because we live in a large and varied world with complex and diverse histories; I feel that it is dangerous to assume that I am speaking for everyone). Colonialists oppressed and killed indigenous peoples and African slaves without any assistance from a technological divide. Women, homosexuals, trans* individuals, people who process the world differently, and peoples with disabilities have been abused throughout American history by people who could have looked them straight in the eye.

I would argue that technology does not inherently cause isolation, disconnect, and oppression. Technology is a tool that allows society to do these things on a larger scale and without having to personally witness the repercussions of our actions.

I think it is important that writers, like Berry, comment on the dangers of technology, but to blame technology for our modern crises is to ignore our history and to avoid the root causes of these modern issues.

It is not enough to have affection, it is not enough to return to a “simpler life” without technology, we also need to deconstruct. Movements that do not radically evaluate the root causes of injustices will never be able to make systemic change. The existing structures we live in have been internalized by all of us and will take careful personal reevaluation of our own biases, a deconstruction of patriarchy, racism, abilism, mental health stigmatization, classism, capitalism, and all hierarchies.

Change is difficult and messy, I feel that Wendell Berry’s experience is poignant and important. What I struggled with were his assertions that we, the audience, need to return to a past and a culture that we specific to his life without critical evaluation.