Sunday, October 07, 2007

Faux or real?

Of all the things going up at other sites, the most e-mailed on here was C.I.'s "And the war drags on . . ." Not a surprise, when Jim read it Friday morning, he was telling Ty, Jess and Dona it was a feature here.



Dealing with the question that kept popping up in the e-mails when is silence an answer? (C.I. wrote, "Silence is rarely the answer.") C.I. responds that, in 1972, Lily Tomlin was a guest on The Dick Cavett Show and hacktor Chad Everett was talking about his wife ("property," according to Chaddie). Tomlin walked out. She didn't say a word, she just got up and walked out. If she'd attempted to engage him on the topic there might have been "Crossfire" style fireworks and the next day could have been all about whatever zingers Chaddie got off (or that some sexists thought he had). Instead, Lily Tomlin walked out and drew more attention to the offense in doing so. That's an example of one time when silence was answer.



Other questions revolved around the notion that conflict could produce anything. C.I. and Elaine note that without conflict, women never would have won the right to vote. "The original first wave" gave up on it long before the suffragette movement. Many attempted to caution patience and urge their fellow woman not to make demands. A very visible split did occur and the movement didn't go under; however, women were successful in the battle.



In the "first wave" (late 60s to early 70s), there were clear divisions and factions. It didn't destroy feminism, it gave the movement various strands and a vibrancy that has been lacking in some periods since.



There is a tendency to smooth over differences and act as if we're all in agreement. That might work in a social setting but it's death to a movement.



When a movement runs along on the exact same goals that it started out on and conducts itself in the exact same way, change will rarely occur. A movement needs to be robust and diverse and that doesn't happen when everyone agree with everyone else.



Elaine and C.I. noted the differences between United For Peace & Justice and A.N.S.W.E.R. last week (see "Reuters covers the peace movement -- badly!" and "Reuters covers the peace movement -- badly!" -- joint-post). They offered that the two don't have to work together (we agree) but UPFJ needs to figure out whether they will work with A.N.S.W.E.R. or not soon because, on campuses, the indecision is becoming an issue. (And UPFJ needs to figure it out because students identify them as the 'parent' contemplating a split.)



NARAL is a group that plays 'nice' and we think they're ineffective. We think they are as responsible for the threat to reproductive rights as are right-wingers. We don't think the weakness that has become the organization's hallmark is particular to them. We think they've moved towards "access" and "respectability" (to the point that the organization even changed their name) and that the move was fairly typical of many organizations.



Organizations that do grow usually do so because they are responding to changes and membership. It may be a call for more inclusion or recognition in leadership, it may be noting that some tactics aren't working.



Howard Zinn entitles his autobiography You Can't Stand Neutral On A Moving Train and we'd add You Can't Stand Still In The Middle Of a Movement. The outside events aren't remaining still, neither should the actions be.



It is about the growth of a movement.



Four years after the illegal war began, you still see some groups who think, "We need to do what we were doing in 2003, only with more people!"



That's not an answer and those groups that think that way should be readying their "Going Out Of Business" signs.



The movement is growing but not just in terms of numbers.



It's growing in terms of brain storming, in terms of ideas.



In a new bad book, Monica Benderman appears to suggest that the peace movement was "spinning its wheels" because it hadn't road tested various actions. We're not really sure how you road test ideas in the midst of an ongoing, illegal war but maybe we haven't spent enough time at the reflecting pools?



But we don't think the movement has spun its wheels. If it stayed frozen in time, that would be the case. Maybe if it took the attitude of, "Okay, it's about to be 2008, somebody pull down our action plan for 2003 and let's cross out '2003' and scrawl '2008' at the top."



Some are apparently doing that, but not all. Some are also more concerned with being "players" than in ending the illegal war. But the idea that the illegal war will be put on hold for a presidential campaign is sooo 2004 and it won't be tolerated this go around. The likelihood that it won't be and that any organizations who put out that nonsense are signing their own death warrants is a testament to the strength of the movement and that didn't come from circling up and all agreeing to only say nice things.



Nor should it ever.



A vibrant movement is an effective movement. Everyone does not have to get along, everyone does not have to agree. Attempting to enforce either notion is ultimately crippling to a movement. The push-pull dynamic is as much a part of any movement as it in any government.

Pearls are created in response to initial irritation, diamonds are created under intense pressure. If today's peace movement is to become a jewel it will require require responding to similar externals. Otherwise it's just a faux jewel for the Make Nice Set.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }