Talk:WG/Strategies/Statement of Solidarity

What is wrong with this statement

 * user:ProtestThis Oct 9, 2011 1:43 pm

You should say who you want to join, not who you don't want.

Friendly Ammendment Suggestion

 * user:sageages Oct 10, 2011 7:26 pm

I agree with the above post.

And, I just noticed that "matriarchy" was added as a form of sexism.

According to the history of sexism, much like the other forms of oppression the statement recognizes, sexism is an organized system of oppression, a part of a large power structure, originally operated by the dominant male group historically to control women. Sexism is perpetrated onto and against women, seeing women as "less than." This still continues today.

Women have historically have been left out of political movements or ignored for their strengths. To include "matriarchy" in this statement, excludes women's experiences in general, the power women have as leaders, as activists and in social movements.

To include "matriarchy" as a form of sexism, ignores and undermines women identified folks' experiences of sexism. I propose that the statement be re-worded to just say "patriarchy" as sexism is defined in the statement.

I encourage people to look at their male privilege and take this post as an opportunity for learning, not for defensiveness, (and for women in the group, also to take this as a learning moment).

Please ammend this statement of solidarity to recognize that sexism is against women and continues to be ongoing.

Please note that I am not ignoring male identified folks' experiences of gender discrimination. Discrimination against men is real and exists. However, the historical experience of sexism is different for women than what men experience around their gender. And, so if there is a concern about the gender discrimination that men experience, that should be in a seperate line, giving both groups the respect they deserve and labled "discrimination based on gender."

Thank you for reading.

In solidarity, Sarah

re: What is wrong with this statement

 * user:BookofAmmon Oct 12, 2011 8:26 am

I think one difficult discussion we're going to have to have about this issue is that, well, if we are and want to represent the 99%, we have to realize that the 99% comes along with a lot of baggage around racism, sexism, GLBT issues, xenophobia, etc.

It's important that we label aggressive and offensive actions and words as not tolerated and not welcome, but I think we also alienate a lot of working-class people if we come across as politically correct thought police.

In my view, these issues are issues that are driven and programmed into all of us to some extent, and so we need to be mindful of the fact that overcoming one's own internalized racism, sexism, etc. is often a long process of deprogramming. We can't expect everyone who shows up to protest Wall Street to have a bachelors degree in Cultural Studies.

The sad truth is that many working-class immigrant communities have very conservative religious views that are hostile to GLBT issues. Many white working-class communities have residual racial angst and anti-immigrant resentment (especially Boston, with its violent past of school desegregation and the bitterness of the collapse of its textile industries to Asian competitors). I know this because these are my family members, or people I've worked with.

The truth is that "cultural enlightenment" is often a result of middle-class privilege. It's funny because in the 1% you tend to see less of these issues made manifest, because they can all unite around their wealth. At a certain income bracket you become less "white, black, brown, or yellow" because everyone is just "green." During Boston's school desegregation crisis, for example, rich liberals often shook their heads at the "racist white poor" while quietly putting their own children into expensive private schools where they weren't going to meet many kids from Roxbury.

So we have to realize that if we want to embrace multiple working-class communities, we need to also be patient with and address the prejudices that come along with them.

So the difficult question is this: how do we make this a safe space for everyone? How do we ensure people of color, GLBT folks, and other socially-marginalized groups that their dignity will be protected and respected, while also making people who are economically-but-not-socially-marginalized (or are in different ways) feel comfortable, and like they won't be branded as KKK sympathizers if they say something inappropriate out of ignorance or anger? These prejudices run deep, and can't be solved by a 2-hour workshop.

Anyway, it's just something I've been thinking about lately, and I really see it as the biggest disconnect that exists on the Left in general, and a big hurdle this movement needs to address. The 99% is a big umbrella, and has elements that have been hostile to each other. In fact, the 1% has often encouraged this hostility to keep us divided (in the 19th century, for example, industrialists often used desperate African-American workers as strike-breakers when the Irish-American unions held strikes, which is one of the root causes of the racial tension that has plagued Boston for over a century).

Again, we should in no way tolerate hate speech or hateful behaviors. But we have to focus on the behaviors and their root causes, instead of just shouting "Bigot!" and kicking them out.

Anyway, bell hooks talks about this way better than I can, so I'll just leave with one of her best quotes:

“It is necessary to remember, as we think critically about domination, that we all have the capacity to act in ways that oppress, dominate, wound (whether or not that power is institutionalized). It is necessary to remember that it is first the potential oppressor within that we must resist – the potential victim within that we must rescue – otherwise we cannot hope for an end to domination, for liberation.” ― bell hooks, Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black

RC

re: What is wrong with this statement

 * user:jaldenh Oct 13, 2011 6:15 pm

The above from BookofAmmon is wonderfully reasoned and captures an essential element of the struggle to be inclusive. Unrepresented communities are mistrustful of white upper AND middle class privilege as they struggle daily simply to survive. We need to figure out how to bridge this divide. It will not be easy.

re: What is wrong with this statement

 * user:pcovery Today 4:34 am

Much as I agree with the solidarity statement, I agree with Ammon and jaldenh that this is more complicated than we'd like it to be. Maybe a shorter statement, something like: "We value peaceful cooperation, so we each try to listen respectfully and understand different experiences and views. E pluribus unum!"