SEAC

From Brer Rabbit Redux:

About five years ago, as an overachieving junior scholar-activist at the University of Maryland, I was in the midst of a rigorous application process that required me to complete pages of biographical inquiry, a series of short essays, several rounds of interviews, and a project proposal for societal change. This was for the Truman Scholarship, a prestigious national award given to “college juniors who show leadership potential and have an interest in government or public sector service.”

My project proposal was to transform the national education system into one befitting of a democracy. I cited Chomsky’s writing on the Trilateral Commission and the liberal elite’s stated goal to make education less democratic in order to stave off unrest like that which occurred in the 1960s and early 1970s and argued that rather than seeking to prevent social upheaval through indoctrination, a democratic society through its system of education should seek to promote free thought and self-critical analysis with the aim of strengthening democracy.

Needless to say I did not win. I did not make it past the gatekeepers — political science professors (do I dare call them liberal elites?) at my own university who insisted that I was too anti-government for such a scholarship and that, among other things, I was an “uneducated radical.” I have only just begun to appreciate the irony of this evaluation.

I suppose that if I had been educated like those old white men on the other side of the conference table, I would critique the police in London for showing too much restraint in dealing with the so-called rioters as the Washington Post and the New York Times appeared to do on Aug. 10 and 11 respectively. Our lovely (dare I call it liberal elite?) media went on to question where the parents were of these youthful rioters, who complained of racism and a lack of opportunities for social advancement. Boo hoo! was the response to this along with the killing of an unarmed black man by white officers, and silence was the response to the subsequent beat-down of unarmed protesters seeking redress. In short, the liberal elite stands for nothing but the status quo, and they want you, the naive, vagabond “uneducated radicals,” to join them in their cynical stand for injustice.

Moreover, as I write this on the 48th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, this same elite wants you to think the man who called the U.S. government the “greatest purveyor of violence” while denouncing the war on Vietnam was merely a great civil rights leader.

Perhaps if I had studied like a good boy, I would have more respect for authority and would not question my own government’s use of force against not only peaceful protesters in the 1960s and beyond, but also against such enemies of the state as the homeless and disabled Dwight Harris who was slammed face first onto a steel grating by two officers without provocation. I might have determined that the BART police’s unprecedented decision to shut down wireless communications to cover the shame of another unjustifiable killing was just another necessary step to curb a serious “excess in democracy,” to quote the 1975 Trilateral Commission report, whose American contributor was the late political scientist Samuel Huntington, former head of the Department of Government at Harvard (an educated radical?).

It’s too bad that as part of my education I did not sit in on monotonous lectures delivered by Huntington’s ghost at the University of Maryland (not quite Harvard, I’ll admit). I preferred the living, breathing form of Dorith Grant-Wisdom, who was laid off last year for daring to specialize in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that “nothing ever happens in,” according to Huntington’s contemporary Henry Kissinger. If I had schooled myself in Huntington’s philosophy, I would not have to question the underpinnings of our government’s direct military involvement in six Muslim countries or the legality of the FBI’s counter-Muslim activities, for it would be the consequence of the inevitable “clash of civilizations” that pits culture against culture in a cynical world of us vs. them. I would merely have to take a side. And I certainly would not have the gall to propose the democratization (liberalization?) of education, which would lead future generations to challenge such a myopic world view.

In summary I am proud to be an “uneducated radical” if educated in the realm of academia and manufactured public opinion is code for sharing the views of the elite. What I once took as an insult I will now take as a compliment and will thank the bearded, crusty old professor who bestowed it upon me with a liberal sprinkling of condescension.

I’m an ‘Uneducated Radical’… Join me!

Picture this: ten young West Virginians carrying a 350-lb fiberglass giraffe through the grounds of a community center in a low-income neighborhood in the Chemical Valley.  It’s a bizarre sight – and it certainly isn’t what the socially-conscious participants expected when they signed up for a summer with Build-It-Up! West Virginia, to build infrastructure and expand the capacity of long-term community-run sustainable economic projects in the coalfields.

But Build-It-Up! exists for a bigger reason: to work in solidarity with communities.  For centuries, missionaries, extractive industries, volunteers and other outsiders have come to West Virginia to “fix” the state, without ever asking what – if anything – needs fixed.  Build-It-Up! makes the extra effort to work with community members, listen to people’s stories, and otherwise assess the needs.  As we build infrastructure, we build trust as well.

“Even though you can’t see the economic improverishment right there in Rock Lake it is all around you, close around you.  This is one of the most economically poor areas in all of Charleston, like right where we’re working.  Not only are we fighting extractive industries, we are fighting an entire system that causes poverty within all areas, specifically West Virginia,” said Dustin Steele, a coordinator for Build-It-Up.  “So when you’re At Rock Lake, realizing that you’re creating and helping build back up a building that is going to help serve as a positive outlet for people to rise up and be empowered from this economic depression…you’re doing tangible, wide-reaching good in all of these communities.  Know that with every maddock you swing, every picnic table you paint, every board you carry out, you are doing a solid good, not only for the community, but for yourself.”

So why the giraffe?  Rock Lake Community Center, where we’re working this week, was a rock quarry, transformed into a swimming pool during the great depression.  The pool also holds historic significance as the site of multiple sit-ins during desegregation.  Community members – and even participants in Build-It-Up! – have shared childhood memories of the Rock Lake Pool or the amusement park, putt-putt course and arcade that later graced the site.  Many coalfield residents spent their childhood summers here.  (More info on the site’s history can be found here)

The community center got its feet off the ground this year with monthly open-mic nights that also serve as a forum for community members.  Suggestions from neighbors resulted in a huge, community-painted mural now prominent inside the old arcade, and now, with help from Build-It-Up! West Virginia, the minigolf course is being restored to its former glory, giraffe and all.  Participants will go door-to-door in the community to spread word of the progress at the center.  Over the next three weeks, volunteer engineers will transform ideas for minigolf obstacles collected from local teenagers into plans for Build-It-Up! to construct in our second week at the site.  That’s what good community organizing looks like – identifying real needs in a community that they can’t implement on their own, connecting the community to the needed resources, working in solidarity with them, and helping them build capacity.  And sometimes, it may just look like a fiberglass giraffe.

From PolicyMic:

NATO’s decision to intervene in Libya on humanitarian grounds has become an alarming and revealing assessment of America’s understanding of war. The way the “established” media portrayed the Libyan conflict, and its subsequent reception, illustrates our society’s failure to recognize how the power dynamics of plutocratic governance shape our realities. There is significant historical evidence that during times of war propaganda is used to justify military action for special interests. If we are to believe the theme of “change” will define our generation, we must pierce through both the media and the government’s rationalization of war.

I have found the established media’s reporting on Libya to be lacking in depth and consideration of an alternative to military intervention. This is not unusual. History repeatedly shows that during times of war, the established media have a tendency to mislead, deceive, and (in some instances) fabricate to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. This is shown through the writings of Carl Bernstein, the Nayirah testimony, the treatment of former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and the beginning of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Essentially, the media has been used to facilitate consent, not dissent.

Given the assumption that we learn from history, our passive acceptance of such reporting is surprising. In 1758, author Samuel Johnson wrote, “Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.” Later, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the emerging military-industrial complex, which we learned has a tradition of lying in addition to tremendous governmental influence. If the military has to go to such lengths for approval, it is clearly not what we naturally desire. Thus, why has there not been more widespread skepticism and objection with regard to Libya?

Led by the U.S., NATO used reports of imminent danger to civilians as justification for humanitarian intervention. Yet, history shows that there is a good reason to approach this explanation with skepticism. In fact, it was recently reported that President Barack Obama exaggerated the humanitarian threat. Once we consider issues such as who the Libyan rebels are and what role oil, banking, previous planning, and geopolitics play in the situation, it seems that history is repeating itself.

The question for our generation becomes: At what point do we categorically reject war and its mechanisms from the beginning rather than in retrospect? We can do this by repudiating all war. We must reject the seemingly righteous theory of humanitarian intervention because it is divorced from how social conflicts actually arise and are resolved. The idea that bombing — an indiscriminate killing method the U.S. has become notoriously inaccurate at — can improve a situation is untenable. The most recent example is Kosovo; it was the nonviolent movement that ultimately resolved the conflict. Moreover, what right does any country have to determine the affairs of another country? This is the same expression of moral superiority used to justify imperialism.

If we want to live in a world of peace, we must learn from our history and see that war is an unnatural phenomenon; we need to reject it on a philosophical and spiritual level. Removing war from our conscience creates space for dialogue and diplomacy, and brings us closer to a shared utopia.

Link to original article

From Brer Rabbit Redux:

by: Matthew Johnson

I was out once with a friend talking about oppression and societal injustice when she said she liked how I wasn’t a ‘guilty white man.’ This made me consider the difference between acting out of guilt, necessity, and solidarity. I believe these are the three main motivators for any sort of social justice or humanitarian work; they do not overlap because they depend greatly on the activist’s position in society and view of that society.

Guilt, in my mind, is the weakest of the three motivators. Guilt is ultimately selfish. It does not serve the needs of the victim but of the perpetrator. Let’s say my father used to be a Klansman, and I decided that once reaching adulthood and understanding the legacy I was inheriting that I would donate 15 percent of my salary to black charities. This would not be serving the true needs of the victims because I did not ask the victims what their needs were. I did not seek out the families that were directly harmed by my father, and I certainly didn’t engage in anti-racist work in my own family and larger community, which would prevent the rise of more Klansmen. I merely sent money to assuage my guilt.

Perhaps a more compelling example is progressive white supporters of President Obama. I can’t help but wonder if they really support his policies or if they are just too afraid, out of guilt, to criticize a black president. They might also be too afraid, out of insecurity, to criticize a man who is ultimately doing more for their community than he is for most blacks. But for the sake of argument, let’s just say that they do care about the larger black community in the United States. Is it not hypocrisy, perhaps even racism, to refuse to criticize a black man for pushing the same policies as his white, despised predecessor? Do they really think their reverence for a black man in the White House is going to make up for centuries of slavery, murder, rape, discrimination, imprisonment, and exploitation?

People who identity as oppressed — whether they be impoverished, of color, homosexual, or disabled — generally engage in so-called activism out of necessity. They are not in a position to simply don a business suit and join the ranks of the privileged. Many of these individuals did not have to learn about racism, classicism, sexism, or any other –ism in college; they experienced them firsthand. If they are to live healthy, safe, and equitable lives in the United States of America, they are obliged to organize or agitate in some way. They do not change causes the way people change clothes — as some white progressive-types do. They do not have this luxury.

Solidarity, I would argue, is the proper role of the privileged in relation to the oppressed or the underprivileged. This is not an easy concept to explain. It must be felt by the privileged person on a deeper level than guilt. The privileged person must understand that his personal suffering or forbearance ultimately means little to the underprivileged person’s liberation. The privileged person must understand that there is an oppressive system at work that manipulates the oppressed and the oppressor alike and that the liberation of one is irrevocably tied to the liberation of the other. We, as the privileged, must not attempt to simply reach out and pull our underprivileged brothers and sisters up to our level. This is not enough, for we must also jump down from our pedestals. We must ultimately join them in the middle, for it is self-evident that the underprivileged becoming “white,” or privileged themselves, is not the answer. It is privilege that continues to separate and alienate humanity rendering peace and justice impossible — not superficial or physical differences.

Link to article