This post by an international INGO staffer weaponizes identity politics and serious concepts (racism, colonial bias, genocide survival) to attack a colleague publicly, dismisses professional standards of respectful workplace conduct, and normalizes Hamas by framing criticism as bias, all while implying donor access should be shaped by ideological alignment. Undermining neutrality, professionalism, and psychological safety, it signals that internal disagreement will be met with public shaming and politicized accusations rather than accountable workplace processes.
Dear @[REDACTED], Below is my response: 1. I urge you to reconsider the assumption that your discomfort is inherently linked to individuals from the Global Majority. [REDACTED ORGANIZATION], as a global organization, belongs to all its stakeholders—staff, supporters, allies, and activists alike. A diverse range of individuals beyond those with right-wing or Zionist affiliations actively support this movement. This is demonstrated by two current petitions reflecting broader solidarity. 2. Your implication that only individuals from melanin poor backgrounds are suited to lead is reflective of a broader colonial bias. Such an assumption dismisses the contributions of people from historically marginalized communities. As someone from a longstanding seafaring culture, which predates the colonial powers of Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, and Britain, I offer a unique perspective. "[REDACTED]" may not be a European name, but it is one that the Global Majority can relate to, reflecting experiences beyond Eurocentric narratives. 3. My qualifications do not require validation from you. Upon reviewing your credentials outside of [REDACTED ORGANIZATION], I found little evidence of substantial experience. While you may have aspirations to contribute to peace campaigns, I bring the lived experience of genocide survival and specific expertise that [REDACTED ORGANIZATION] currently lacks. Given my background, I believe there are few [REDACTED] here with comparable experience. My objective is to develop funding strategies that resonate with audiences often alienated by [REDACTED ORGANIZATION]'s current approach. It is imperative that we expand our outreach beyond former colonial powers. With a proven track record—such as managing [REDACTED]—I am well-equipped to contribute effectively to [REDACTED ORGANIZATION]. 4. The fact that you chose to publicly question my capabilities, while others have approached me privately, suggests underlying racial biases. These assumptions about my skills and knowledge highlight an uncomfortable reality within [REDACTED ORGANIZATION]. I encourage you to set aside these biases and grant me the benefit of the doubt. Our shared mission within an international NGO demands mutual respect and recognition of one another's contributions as equals. 5. Mischaracterizing Hamas solely as a violent institution is a problematic oversimplification, akin to labeling all Italians as fascists because of Meloni's leadership. Hamas is, first and foremost, a political entity. To generalize in this way is to perpetuate harmful biases against the Arab world and those of Islamic faith. And yes, I condemn violence in every form whether political or in interpersonal relationships. 6. I propose we establish a team to develop strategies that enable [REDACTED ORGANIZATION] to adopt a genuinely decolonial approach. Such efforts should focus on campaigns that genuinely resonate with the Global Majority. As funding from traditional, colonial-aligned sources becomes less sustainable, it is essential that we identify new revenue streams. Given this context, prospective donors may not be inclined to engage with individuals who display unconscious biases. (edited)
