The economic collapse has hit the Rose household like a hurricane. We've always been right near the edge financially, so when our main breadwinner is out of work for a few weeks, there are some serious consequences and tough decisions to be made.
It's going to be a while before luxuries like writing a blog take priority in my life again.
Thanks for reading and responding to this blog over the past several months.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Thoughts And Links On Racism
Between work, family, a meeting in LA, the flu and a host of other obligations, it has not been easy to find the time or willingness to write.
I'm quite grateful, though, that we have a number of terrific writers and investigative journalists in Hawai'i who have helped me stay informed of recent events like the demise of the Hawai'i Superferry.
In the few moments I have now before I go back to bed with an ear-ache and a stuffed-up head, I wanted to share a link to a blog I recently discovered called Racism Review. It's worth a look for some thoughtful writings on racism. There's also a very funny clip posted recently from "The Daily Show" on "the white face of crime."
I saw "Racism Review" cited in the end notes to Tim Wise's new book Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama. I read Wise's book in preparation for a radio interview we plan to do.
I'm interested in Wise's perspective on what Obama's election says about the state of racism and white privilege in the US, and I look forward to speaking with him about it, but it is undeniable that the racial "ground truth" in Hawai'i is unique and difficult to adequately explain in the same way us continentals are accustomed to discussing racism.
The funny thing is, though, that most white folk who move here from the continent don't even recognize this difference, and that's why we tend toward simplistic and reactionary responses to Hawai'i's racial landscape.
It would take more energy and clarity than I can muster now to go into detail, but I have noticed that the one thing white folk tend to apply universally when we are either not in the majority or are otherwise confronted with people of color in decision-making positions is the dubious concept of "reverse racism."
I consider that formulation "the white face of stupidity," and I think we need to rise to a higher standard of thinking.
I'm quite grateful, though, that we have a number of terrific writers and investigative journalists in Hawai'i who have helped me stay informed of recent events like the demise of the Hawai'i Superferry.
In the few moments I have now before I go back to bed with an ear-ache and a stuffed-up head, I wanted to share a link to a blog I recently discovered called Racism Review. It's worth a look for some thoughtful writings on racism. There's also a very funny clip posted recently from "The Daily Show" on "the white face of crime."
I saw "Racism Review" cited in the end notes to Tim Wise's new book Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama. I read Wise's book in preparation for a radio interview we plan to do.
I'm interested in Wise's perspective on what Obama's election says about the state of racism and white privilege in the US, and I look forward to speaking with him about it, but it is undeniable that the racial "ground truth" in Hawai'i is unique and difficult to adequately explain in the same way us continentals are accustomed to discussing racism.
The funny thing is, though, that most white folk who move here from the continent don't even recognize this difference, and that's why we tend toward simplistic and reactionary responses to Hawai'i's racial landscape.
It would take more energy and clarity than I can muster now to go into detail, but I have noticed that the one thing white folk tend to apply universally when we are either not in the majority or are otherwise confronted with people of color in decision-making positions is the dubious concept of "reverse racism."
I consider that formulation "the white face of stupidity," and I think we need to rise to a higher standard of thinking.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Good Times!
Yesterday's rally for civil unions brought out more than forty people, twice as many as I had expected.The response from passers-by was impressive. These stood out: a wedding party, "Just Married" painted on the cars, and then two car loads of high-school-age young men each gave a raucus show of support.
State-wide, candlelight vigils were held to support the civil unions bill, but on Kaua'i we planned a rally because it fit our particular conditions much better. I think we made a good choice, and I enjoyed building new alliances with folks in our community.
I think one of the keys to making this an action that people turned out for and enjoyed was the way that the planning, even though it was hasty, included people from very different organizing circles. Because rally planners had disparate networks, we were able to do broader outreach quickly. I know that sounds really elementary, but I think sometimes on Kaua'i we don't reach across constituencies enough.
A side-effect of planning this rally was that it forced some of us heteros to do some (not enough) organizing among our straight brothers and sisters, to explain why standing up for LGBTQ rights is important to our collective liberation. Some of us found deep discomfort where we did not expect it, and had to confront a little bit of the misunderstanding and hostility that queer people face daily.
This reminded me again of how important it is to improve the way I try to build solidarity with people in struggle. I disappointed myself at times by losing my composure with straight people who disagreed with me about the importance of supporting LGBTQ folk. I learned a lot by watching some of my comrades break the issue down in simple, compelling, and human terms - instead of shouting ideological slogans as I sometimes do when I'm trying to win an argument.
There are times when we need to be confrontational. I think as a movement we need to up the ante, upset business as usual, and create a particular kind of discomfort. We need to consider how power can be shifted, because we don't advance liberation by waiting for favors to be handed down by an elite class that takes pity on us.
But there are also times when a different approach is called for. I'm trying to be more aware of the difference. Sometimes I go after mosquitos with sledgehammers, I end up missing the mark entirely, and then my sledgehammer is broken when I really need it.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Engaging Debate In Our Circles
This Saturday at 4:30 PM at the intersection of Kaumuali`i Highway and Nawiliwili Road near the Kukui Grove Shopping Center, I'll be standing with a group of social justice advocates to support civil unions for same-sex couples.
In planning this rally, I was surprised to run into some rather regressive positions in my activist circles. I wrote about this on Monday.
Today I wrote a letter to some of my comrades, and I'll reprint a revised version of it here:
It is up to us if debate on crucial social justice questions within our movements weakens us or strengthens us, and I suggest that a pre-condition for a positive outcome is an attitude humility and open-mindedness.
· I bend toward anarchism myself, so I am sympathetic to a critique of the role of the state in legitimizing or de-legitimizing human relationships. However, we live in a hierarchical system today and there is radical potential – and necessity - in resisting fundamental contradictions in the way the State bestows or withholds rights. I am not one to throw the fight simply because the way the debate has been framed is not radical enough for my philosophy. Solidarity with marginalized and oppressed groups is a higher value in my book.
· I don’t think any of us are naïve enough to think that homophobia doesn’t cut cross all generations. But some of us are part of the “post-Stonewall” era, in which emerging social justice advocates have found it quite natural to incorporate a pro-queer analysis into our work. One of my earliest and greatest mentors was my sixth grade teacher in 1978 in the Bay Area. He was a gay man fighting for liberation next to his good friend Harvey Milk and the many thousands of gay teachers in California working to defeat a ballot proposition which would have fired all gay teachers. Thanks to the struggles of of the Third World Left, the women’s liberation movement, the labor movement and others, the queer movement had the space to flourish and become naturalized to those of us growing up in this era.
· It DOES matter if we are gay, lesbian, transgendered or straight, white or of color, men or women, abled or disabled. These aren’t small matters because they define critical parts of our experience living in a society that benefits or oppresses groups according to these categories. Our social locations give us important insight into our movement work. It is disingenuous to pretend that these things don’t strengthen and inform our experience as a movement – or to view them as “divisive”. They’re only divisive if we don’t give each other the space and respect we deserve as people who have experienced oppression and resistance in various ways. The old Left constantly tried to push these questions into a corner with sentiments like “Don’t bring up sexism in our organization! It’s a distraction! That will be solved after the revolution!” (These kinds of statements are usually made by representatives of the group with more social privilege.) A new Left has taken up the challenge of facing these matters head-on, finding the intersections of our oppressions and resistances, and working toward a collective liberation.
· Misogyny and homophobia are both essential to the perpetuation of patriarchy. In my view, both need to be dismantled thoroughly. Standing in solidarity with queers in struggle is a necessary part of this.
· “Deviant” has negative connotations. Statements doubting the fitness of LBGTQ people to parent children have negative connotations.
· Assuming that LBGTQ people cannot have children is misinformed – like straight people, most have functioning reproductive systems!
· Homophobia is a life-and-death issue for LBGTQ people. A disproportionate number of teen suicides result from the crippling confusion and shame felt by queer youth in a homophobic society. If we ever doubt the violence and threats faced by queer people in our society, we must be straight.
· Equal rights advanced to socially marginalized and oppressed groups are not “special rights.” They are human rights. The “special rights” argument comes straight out of the right-wing play-book.
· Straight men are hurt by homophobia and sexism too. These oppressions and others rob us of our full humanity and capacity to connect with each other.
One last thing: I would like to share a technique that has been helpful to me when people have called me out on statements and behavior that contributed to oppressive dynamics. Even though my defenses go up when I’m challenged, I find it helpful to say something like “I’ve never looked at it that way before. Thank you for pointing this out. I am going to think about this for a while..” Even if I feel really defensive, this statement gives me room to grow and change my perspective. This technique has helped me grow up and face my unexamined assumptions about race, class, gender, disability, sexuality, and a host of other issues.
In planning this rally, I was surprised to run into some rather regressive positions in my activist circles. I wrote about this on Monday.
Today I wrote a letter to some of my comrades, and I'll reprint a revised version of it here:
It is up to us if debate on crucial social justice questions within our movements weakens us or strengthens us, and I suggest that a pre-condition for a positive outcome is an attitude humility and open-mindedness.
· I bend toward anarchism myself, so I am sympathetic to a critique of the role of the state in legitimizing or de-legitimizing human relationships. However, we live in a hierarchical system today and there is radical potential – and necessity - in resisting fundamental contradictions in the way the State bestows or withholds rights. I am not one to throw the fight simply because the way the debate has been framed is not radical enough for my philosophy. Solidarity with marginalized and oppressed groups is a higher value in my book.
· I don’t think any of us are naïve enough to think that homophobia doesn’t cut cross all generations. But some of us are part of the “post-Stonewall” era, in which emerging social justice advocates have found it quite natural to incorporate a pro-queer analysis into our work. One of my earliest and greatest mentors was my sixth grade teacher in 1978 in the Bay Area. He was a gay man fighting for liberation next to his good friend Harvey Milk and the many thousands of gay teachers in California working to defeat a ballot proposition which would have fired all gay teachers. Thanks to the struggles of of the Third World Left, the women’s liberation movement, the labor movement and others, the queer movement had the space to flourish and become naturalized to those of us growing up in this era.
· It DOES matter if we are gay, lesbian, transgendered or straight, white or of color, men or women, abled or disabled. These aren’t small matters because they define critical parts of our experience living in a society that benefits or oppresses groups according to these categories. Our social locations give us important insight into our movement work. It is disingenuous to pretend that these things don’t strengthen and inform our experience as a movement – or to view them as “divisive”. They’re only divisive if we don’t give each other the space and respect we deserve as people who have experienced oppression and resistance in various ways. The old Left constantly tried to push these questions into a corner with sentiments like “Don’t bring up sexism in our organization! It’s a distraction! That will be solved after the revolution!” (These kinds of statements are usually made by representatives of the group with more social privilege.) A new Left has taken up the challenge of facing these matters head-on, finding the intersections of our oppressions and resistances, and working toward a collective liberation.
· Misogyny and homophobia are both essential to the perpetuation of patriarchy. In my view, both need to be dismantled thoroughly. Standing in solidarity with queers in struggle is a necessary part of this.
· “Deviant” has negative connotations. Statements doubting the fitness of LBGTQ people to parent children have negative connotations.
· Assuming that LBGTQ people cannot have children is misinformed – like straight people, most have functioning reproductive systems!
· Homophobia is a life-and-death issue for LBGTQ people. A disproportionate number of teen suicides result from the crippling confusion and shame felt by queer youth in a homophobic society. If we ever doubt the violence and threats faced by queer people in our society, we must be straight.
· Equal rights advanced to socially marginalized and oppressed groups are not “special rights.” They are human rights. The “special rights” argument comes straight out of the right-wing play-book.
· Straight men are hurt by homophobia and sexism too. These oppressions and others rob us of our full humanity and capacity to connect with each other.
One last thing: I would like to share a technique that has been helpful to me when people have called me out on statements and behavior that contributed to oppressive dynamics. Even though my defenses go up when I’m challenged, I find it helpful to say something like “I’ve never looked at it that way before. Thank you for pointing this out. I am going to think about this for a while..” Even if I feel really defensive, this statement gives me room to grow and change my perspective. This technique has helped me grow up and face my unexamined assumptions about race, class, gender, disability, sexuality, and a host of other issues.
Monday, March 2, 2009
They're Here, They're "Left," And We Better Not Get Used To It
It's a sign of my heterosexual privilege that I have been so astonished over the last week to see the homophobia ooze out of what I had considered some unlikely places. If I were gay, lesbian or transgendered, I suppose none of this would have surprised me.
Well, just like it's hard for white people to see white privilege and the effects of white supremacy, and able-bodied people don't pay attention to the the stairs we bounce up to reach a doorway, and sexism is very often invisible to men, I've walked around completely convinced that my straight allies on the left had abandoned gay-bashing a long time ago. Remember "Straight But Not Narrow"? I thought all the hateful rhetoric was the sole property of the Christian Right.
Sure, I've known for a long time that the average straight guy is scared shitless of gayness. The anxiety is mixed up with deep-seated misogyny and the vestiges intense oppression.
I can't tell you how many times in years past I've heard straight men recount tales of rebuffing a gay man's advances. I've always found this funny - these guys with their one story of warding off an unwanted suitor, told as an epic on par with Oddyseus's trials at sea. Ask any woman to share her stories of unwanted advances by straight men: it would take a week to tell them all.
I'm not going to exclude straight women from this critique. I've been shocked by friends outside of activist circles who have told me that they would not be able to accept it if one of their children turned out to be gay. I hope that when it does come to pass, their love for their children will help them mature past such bigotry, and that does happen sometimes, though it often doesn't, and my heart goes out to those children.
But most of the time, if a countervailing message is presented, I've found that people can change and rise above their conditioned responses and see the question of queer liberation for what it is: a simple matter of social justice.
Today in Hawaii, the debate over the hardly-radical civil unions bill has roused more than the usual amount of ugliness, if the fact that even I have noticed it is any indication. I expect it from the evangelical right-wing churches, of course, but when it presents itself within my progressive and radical circles, I feel frightened and sick.
Just yesterday, I received a reply to an email I sent out about an upcoming rally supporting civil unions. Here's an excerpt:
... [A]s an ordinary and normal man and father I would be concerned about the ways these same sex couples would raise the children and what they would indoctrinate into them. It is crucial to plant the right idea into the head of the children when they grow up. And I am concerned for the next generation too. What if these adoptive gays or lesbians are trying to bend the natural sexual feeling of the adopted child into their own distorted directions? Even if they may not succeed, they may create an emotional trauma in the child, which, then we would try to cure at the expense of taxpayers...On the issue of homosexuals I feel that this society went berserk and does not see further than its nose. I don't want to hurt, mock or ostracize, especially not to condemn or condone this sexual deviation called homosexuality as a phenomenon, because I consider it as deviant as the habit of those heterosexuals who have the desire to screw on the branch of a tree or in the middle of a baseball field surrounded by spectators. Fine, let them do it, but why request special privileges for their deviations, not to mention special legal status? And why announce it?...The homosexuals have the same right as anyone else. Why would they be entitled to extra privileges when they publicly disclose their deviation?
Well, just like it's hard for white people to see white privilege and the effects of white supremacy, and able-bodied people don't pay attention to the the stairs we bounce up to reach a doorway, and sexism is very often invisible to men, I've walked around completely convinced that my straight allies on the left had abandoned gay-bashing a long time ago. Remember "Straight But Not Narrow"? I thought all the hateful rhetoric was the sole property of the Christian Right.
Sure, I've known for a long time that the average straight guy is scared shitless of gayness. The anxiety is mixed up with deep-seated misogyny and the vestiges intense oppression.
I can't tell you how many times in years past I've heard straight men recount tales of rebuffing a gay man's advances. I've always found this funny - these guys with their one story of warding off an unwanted suitor, told as an epic on par with Oddyseus's trials at sea. Ask any woman to share her stories of unwanted advances by straight men: it would take a week to tell them all.
I'm not going to exclude straight women from this critique. I've been shocked by friends outside of activist circles who have told me that they would not be able to accept it if one of their children turned out to be gay. I hope that when it does come to pass, their love for their children will help them mature past such bigotry, and that does happen sometimes, though it often doesn't, and my heart goes out to those children.
But most of the time, if a countervailing message is presented, I've found that people can change and rise above their conditioned responses and see the question of queer liberation for what it is: a simple matter of social justice.
Today in Hawaii, the debate over the hardly-radical civil unions bill has roused more than the usual amount of ugliness, if the fact that even I have noticed it is any indication. I expect it from the evangelical right-wing churches, of course, but when it presents itself within my progressive and radical circles, I feel frightened and sick.
Just yesterday, I received a reply to an email I sent out about an upcoming rally supporting civil unions. Here's an excerpt:
... [A]s an ordinary and normal man and father I would be concerned about the ways these same sex couples would raise the children and what they would indoctrinate into them. It is crucial to plant the right idea into the head of the children when they grow up. And I am concerned for the next generation too. What if these adoptive gays or lesbians are trying to bend the natural sexual feeling of the adopted child into their own distorted directions? Even if they may not succeed, they may create an emotional trauma in the child, which, then we would try to cure at the expense of taxpayers...On the issue of homosexuals I feel that this society went berserk and does not see further than its nose. I don't want to hurt, mock or ostracize, especially not to condemn or condone this sexual deviation called homosexuality as a phenomenon, because I consider it as deviant as the habit of those heterosexuals who have the desire to screw on the branch of a tree or in the middle of a baseball field surrounded by spectators. Fine, let them do it, but why request special privileges for their deviations, not to mention special legal status? And why announce it?...The homosexuals have the same right as anyone else. Why would they be entitled to extra privileges when they publicly disclose their deviation?
Straight white male, please!
I don't think I need to pick apart this foolishness, but I do need to say that we straight leftists are not living up to our obligation to be allies to the LGBTQ community if we aren't challenging shit like this in our own left circles.
I'm not saying I know exactly how to do it, and my lack of a plan is frankly quite depressing to me today. But we gotta do something. Our queer sisters and brothers have been taking this on for a long, long time.
Time for us to step up.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Sorry, Mr. Lewis!
Fortunately, in these lean times, I've been able to find some extra work to help make ends meet around here.
Unfortunately, I don't have much time to write - and there's a lot I'd like to write about these days.
For example, I see in today's Garden Island that Walter Lewis has responded to my critique of his piece about the role of local culture in Kaua'i politics, which he now suggests was not about the role of local culture in Kaua'i government.
Instead, he now wants us to believe that his column was actually about puppies, kittens, and rainbows...or something.
Along with claiming that the word "conflate" isn't in the dictionary, he suggests that if I don't acknowledge the "misrepresentations" in my piece, then I am not an "honorable" person. Okay. I get it. My piece hurt his feelings. Sorry, man.
Maybe it's just a wild coincidence that Lewis, who referenced statistics about the percentage of white workers versus Filipino workers in county government, cited Tony Sommer's claim that Kaua'i government is "racist," and stated that "we fail to elect those persons with the best qualities when we go to the polls. The dominant criteria for success in gathering votes are favorable name recognition and ethnicity," was understood by many to be criticizing "local culture."
One of the things I found really interesting about his original article was the implicit assumption that there is such a thing as a politics free of cultural influence.
I know - because I'm haole and I live on the north shore and I get to hear all about it from all the other haoles around here who don't keep it secret - that we haoles vote as an ethnic bloc. Every election cycle there is some "great white hope" that we all go out and vote for. We are convinced that this candidate represents truth, justice, reason and real change. And it just so happens that he's white, and comes from the continent, so he's not tainted by "cultural influences!"
Of course, we don't always vote for just the haoles. Like every other ethnic group on Kaua'i, we vote across some ethnic lines.
But it's disingenuous to suggest that haoles don't bring our culture into our politics too, and don't vote along ethnic lines. I think we do these things because we are anxious about being in a political minority. Suddenly, "color-blindness" is paramount - at the very moment when we see our privilege being questioned.
I still think that this suggestion was part of the subtext of Lewis's piece.
Of course, he'd probably say that he can't find the word "subtext" in his dictionary.
Unfortunately, I don't have much time to write - and there's a lot I'd like to write about these days.
For example, I see in today's Garden Island that Walter Lewis has responded to my critique of his piece about the role of local culture in Kaua'i politics, which he now suggests was not about the role of local culture in Kaua'i government.
Instead, he now wants us to believe that his column was actually about puppies, kittens, and rainbows...or something.
Along with claiming that the word "conflate" isn't in the dictionary, he suggests that if I don't acknowledge the "misrepresentations" in my piece, then I am not an "honorable" person. Okay. I get it. My piece hurt his feelings. Sorry, man.
Maybe it's just a wild coincidence that Lewis, who referenced statistics about the percentage of white workers versus Filipino workers in county government, cited Tony Sommer's claim that Kaua'i government is "racist," and stated that "we fail to elect those persons with the best qualities when we go to the polls. The dominant criteria for success in gathering votes are favorable name recognition and ethnicity," was understood by many to be criticizing "local culture."
One of the things I found really interesting about his original article was the implicit assumption that there is such a thing as a politics free of cultural influence.
I know - because I'm haole and I live on the north shore and I get to hear all about it from all the other haoles around here who don't keep it secret - that we haoles vote as an ethnic bloc. Every election cycle there is some "great white hope" that we all go out and vote for. We are convinced that this candidate represents truth, justice, reason and real change. And it just so happens that he's white, and comes from the continent, so he's not tainted by "cultural influences!"
Of course, we don't always vote for just the haoles. Like every other ethnic group on Kaua'i, we vote across some ethnic lines.
But it's disingenuous to suggest that haoles don't bring our culture into our politics too, and don't vote along ethnic lines. I think we do these things because we are anxious about being in a political minority. Suddenly, "color-blindness" is paramount - at the very moment when we see our privilege being questioned.
I still think that this suggestion was part of the subtext of Lewis's piece.
Of course, he'd probably say that he can't find the word "subtext" in his dictionary.
Monday, February 23, 2009
"Apartheid Is So Gay"
It's very depressing to see that 2,000 people showed up at the Capital yesterday to protest the civil-unions bill.
It would be fun to call an anti-civil union rally in a convention hall, just to get all those folks together to show them this:
In the old days, the arguments against inter-racial marriage were very similar to those used against same-sex civil unions today. People found biblical justification for denying inter-racial couples the right to marry.
Here's my message of hope, though: consistent struggle works. Today, the rights of inter-racial couples are taken for granted. Tomorrow, the same will be true for same-sex couples. We just have to keep fighting for it.
As we fight, let's get smarter about how we can consistently reach across lines of gender, race, nationality,sexuality, class, ability, generation. Our collective liberation will depend on it.
It would be fun to call an anti-civil union rally in a convention hall, just to get all those folks together to show them this:
In the old days, the arguments against inter-racial marriage were very similar to those used against same-sex civil unions today. People found biblical justification for denying inter-racial couples the right to marry.
Here's my message of hope, though: consistent struggle works. Today, the rights of inter-racial couples are taken for granted. Tomorrow, the same will be true for same-sex couples. We just have to keep fighting for it.
As we fight, let's get smarter about how we can consistently reach across lines of gender, race, nationality,sexuality, class, ability, generation. Our collective liberation will depend on it.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Recommended Reading on Direct Action
Diary of a Walking Butterfly is a good site offering analysis and resources for organizers. Here's a gem we'd be wise to consider deeply:
Social Power Gets the Goods
"Direct Action Gets the Goods":
The person who wrote this definitely could have meant “social power gets the goods”. But they just as easily could have thought that the use of direct action, the tactic itself, is the essense of what makes an action effective. Those who think that direct action is what brings about victories are often confused, annoyed, or frustrated when it fails to do so.
It is important to move beyond simplistic slogans like this, and especially dogma around everything from direct action and voting, to issues of state power and reform struggles. Without breaking through these simplistic concepts, we will be ill-equipped to maximize our chances of success and effectively analyze our failures and setbacks.
Most good organizers who use direct action as a tactic would agree that greater numbers and higher consciousness among participants will increase the likelihood of success. But unless a correct understanding of the nature of power is central to their “conceptual toolbox”, they are less likely to convey the correct lessons to those they lead, or are more likely to convey them in a language which is misinterpreted by newer members.
If the central slogan they use is “direct action gets the goods”, and they have an implicit understanding that direct action works best with large numbers and with a high level of political unity, then they can be effective leaders. Unfortunately, their use of the term often gives newer members with an incoherent and/or poorly synthesized perspective on organizing, power, and action.
Effective organizers would do well to say precisely what they mean: organizing that builds evermore social power is what “gets the goods”, and direct action is often an extremely useful tactic in the context of an well-planned strategy. We should not elevate tactics to the level of strategy nor should we misattribute causal attributes (i.e. incorrectly attributing to the success of a campaign to direct action, compared to correctly attributing the success of a campaign to the organized social power of progressives who used direct action as part of an effective and well-planned strategy).
As more youth organizers correctly grasp the nature of power and strategy, our movement will flurish (sic) in ways previously unseen.
This makes me wonder: are we on Kaua'i ready for the fire next time?
Social Power Gets the Goods
"Direct Action Gets the Goods":
The person who wrote this definitely could have meant “social power gets the goods”. But they just as easily could have thought that the use of direct action, the tactic itself, is the essense of what makes an action effective. Those who think that direct action is what brings about victories are often confused, annoyed, or frustrated when it fails to do so.
It is important to move beyond simplistic slogans like this, and especially dogma around everything from direct action and voting, to issues of state power and reform struggles. Without breaking through these simplistic concepts, we will be ill-equipped to maximize our chances of success and effectively analyze our failures and setbacks.
Most good organizers who use direct action as a tactic would agree that greater numbers and higher consciousness among participants will increase the likelihood of success. But unless a correct understanding of the nature of power is central to their “conceptual toolbox”, they are less likely to convey the correct lessons to those they lead, or are more likely to convey them in a language which is misinterpreted by newer members.
If the central slogan they use is “direct action gets the goods”, and they have an implicit understanding that direct action works best with large numbers and with a high level of political unity, then they can be effective leaders. Unfortunately, their use of the term often gives newer members with an incoherent and/or poorly synthesized perspective on organizing, power, and action.
Effective organizers would do well to say precisely what they mean: organizing that builds evermore social power is what “gets the goods”, and direct action is often an extremely useful tactic in the context of an well-planned strategy. We should not elevate tactics to the level of strategy nor should we misattribute causal attributes (i.e. incorrectly attributing to the success of a campaign to direct action, compared to correctly attributing the success of a campaign to the organized social power of progressives who used direct action as part of an effective and well-planned strategy).
As more youth organizers correctly grasp the nature of power and strategy, our movement will flurish (sic) in ways previously unseen.
This makes me wonder: are we on Kaua'i ready for the fire next time?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Rebel Voices and Visions
Check out the new sites I've linked to on the right hand column. (Thanks to the AK Press blog for pointing these out.)
One of them, Red State Rebels, grew out of the anthology by the same name, which I highly recommend.
The book validates the radical struggles that emerge outside the urban centers, in the places we are least conditioned to expect them. Having had the privilege of working with radicals in places as far off the beaten path as Kaua'i and Montana, I can appreciate the value of shifting our collective gaze away from activist hot-spots and finding the radical potential right where we're at. (But I don't mean we should ignore what's going on in the cities!)
Red State Rebels reminds us of the unique modes of resistance developed in rural areas. I recommend the essay "The New North Dakota Populists," by Ted Nace, for an inspiring account of a farmer-led anti-GMO victory. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's essay, "Go Home, Red State Rebels!," elegantly describes some of the critical differences between rural and urban culture in grassroots organizing. This is a topic of great interest to me, because I believe that we may be able to develop a best-of-both-worlds approach that can combine some of the more daring and confrontational tactics common to urban organizing with the deeply humane and socially-connected approaches more common to organizing in smaller communities.
I've also linked to Just Seeds, because I appreciate the critical work of artists in revolutionary struggle. And bursts of color are just good for us.
One of them, Red State Rebels, grew out of the anthology by the same name, which I highly recommend.
The book validates the radical struggles that emerge outside the urban centers, in the places we are least conditioned to expect them. Having had the privilege of working with radicals in places as far off the beaten path as Kaua'i and Montana, I can appreciate the value of shifting our collective gaze away from activist hot-spots and finding the radical potential right where we're at. (But I don't mean we should ignore what's going on in the cities!)
Red State Rebels reminds us of the unique modes of resistance developed in rural areas. I recommend the essay "The New North Dakota Populists," by Ted Nace, for an inspiring account of a farmer-led anti-GMO victory. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's essay, "Go Home, Red State Rebels!," elegantly describes some of the critical differences between rural and urban culture in grassroots organizing. This is a topic of great interest to me, because I believe that we may be able to develop a best-of-both-worlds approach that can combine some of the more daring and confrontational tactics common to urban organizing with the deeply humane and socially-connected approaches more common to organizing in smaller communities.
I've also linked to Just Seeds, because I appreciate the critical work of artists in revolutionary struggle. And bursts of color are just good for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
