Add new comment

Accessibility is a concern of mine, I suppose, and it has been a more central concern for the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair Collective - and for a lot of other people, too, who I at least respect. Thus a lot of discussion about accessibility. Incidentally, because I have encountered "monoglot hispanophones" a few times in the context of the bookfair (people who literally came from Mexico, perhaps not directly, in order to participate, for instance), I think there is a case to be made for the eminent practicality of prioritizing Spanish versus, say, Russian or Wolof or Thai. This doesn't mean that other language monoglots might not show up (I have met a person at the bookfair who only spoke Japanese, for instance), but that we get more bang for our buck with Spanish versus MOST alternatives.

Re: plurality or diversity, I think this is again a misunderstanding of the text. I don't express any opinions on the value of plurality/diversity, nor a desire for "more of it" - though I am, in fact, critical of the well-meaning but misguided idea that we should simply add more languages in a higgledy piggledy sort of way to our projects (see the subsection of "Implementation" regarding "how to understand equity").

This text is making the case for Spanish, specifically, as a third "working language" for a variety of reasons, which includes the accessibility reasons but which also has to do with breaking with the gridlock of anglophone vs. francophone nonsense (in its various manifestations) and for increasing the power of anarchists (in numerous ways) to do the things that they want. Incidentally, these points can, I think, be applied to projects (both formal and informal, both personal and political) far beyond the narrow case of the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair.

Regarding the lack of accessibility of the text itself... I actually don't really care about that? Like, I mean, it would be great if it was more accessible, but another thrust of the text is to provide a more robust vocabulary and analytical framework for understanding linguistic issues in this region, and to demolish simple, clichéd understandings that are easier to grasp, or even more intuitive.

In other words, I think the bookfair being more accessible would be to the good, and say as much in the text, but I don't think this text (or any other text that seeks to enable a more complex understanding of any given issue) needs to be "accessible" if that simply means "easy".