Anyhow, the main thing I hadn't really grasped before is exactly how uncomfortable and unused to demonstrations (marches?) a lot of people in the United States are. I should probably have known this, considering I've taken history and have lived here for a decade but still, the magnitude of things that has come up since threw me for a loop.
I'll explain the quickest and simplest way there is. I grew up in a country where there is demonstrations every May 1st. The international workers' day, as it is in most leftish/socialist countries all over the world. I also grew up with worker strikes (not many but the few that happened were pretty big), school demonstrations (students doing a "sit out for a cause") and a lot of demonstrations for solidarity - example "against violence against women", "for accepting refugees in the country", "for stopping the war in country X,Y or Z" (depending on which group is having the demonstration)* or protesting a decision that is going through in the local government.
Most of the bigger demonstrations happen down town Stockholm (capital with the State government building) but a lot in "downtown small town" if not to show that people all over the country support it, like the "we stand together against racism" and similar.
My point? That most of the demonstrations (caveat; it's changed a little in the last decade with being more polarized and "counter-demonstrations") are peaceful and police are there, yet don't do arrests. And even if they end up "not super peaceful" there has only been one time the last 30 years when the police has shot someone and (international demonstration in Gothenburg with EU meeting and Bush visiting in 2001) and teargas hasn't been used since 1970ies (it wasn't allowed until a provision for very limited use in 2012 and forth...).
Obviously it's a different story in the USA. And add on top of that liberal gun laws in the South and who knows what can happen? Yes, different indeed.
However, what really got me into this thinking is the aftermath conversations that have come up in conversation with coworkers, the media, on facebook and in twitter. It's partly "what's the point of a demonstration? You should DO something instead" (I) and partly "the march excluded a lot of people and also, {you} white women should be ashamed of not doing this earlier and listen to other women" (II).
My very brief thoughts on I and II based on my experience in organized politics from another country.
(I) One point of demonstrations is to show "the people" that there are several who think like them, to find unity and seek support towards or against [what ever the demonstration is there to show]. It's a good way (imho) to get grass roots to feel included and is generally a good way to rally people to get involved. (Part of why I was disappointed that the march I went to on Saturday didn't have pamphlets with "this is what you can do now when you are here and wanting to ACT", perhaps local organizations and phone numbers/names on congresspeople and state representatives supporting this?)
The second, less kind yet important, part is to show "the rulers" that there is strength in numbers and that they shouldn't forget that the people put them in power, and that they can be removed. (this is of course more philosophical, yet why it's powerful with demonstrations and why a lot of countries don't allow them. Tienanmen square anyone? Terrible optics for the government and all for the world to see. Don't disregard it as a tool for power.)
(II) [read and remember that I am not American, living as an immigrant in the USA and English is not my first language.] The debate on white women, the blame of their vote for Trump. The debate on exclusion of transwomen when making signs showing uterus=woman and vice versa. And maybe most of all to me, the debate on women of colour and people of colour and that they have marched all this time and been met with violence and disregard but now when white people engage, it's a different story and it's peaceful.
This is the section I have hardest to explain eloquently what my perception is. I might be able to do it by simply telling my story - and letting you see where I come from - before being judged.
I say this since I was part of a movement that worked on change back in Sweden. We wanted to promote diversity, not having only males in the university board. At first it seemed straight forward, trying to change language to "at least 30% of each sex". Of course, it is not simple. It then became a discussion if we didn't need more inclusion of "people from non traditional environments", "people originating from other countries", "people who had disabilities", "people who were religious" etc... and in the end, while we were talking about these important issues - because they are, and yes, we wanted a diverse board - nothing happened. After many years, the only thing that was concluded was "the board should be changed, however the parties can't agree on how the new board should look like apart from 'it needs to be diverse and included everyone'" but there was no change. The status quo had "won". (Similar debate is currently on going in discussions with Company Boards as per the Norway law that went into effect a few years back.)
The only one who wins when the oppressed people argue within themselves are the oppressors. The best way of not getting any progress is to get too focused on history that needs to be apologized for or special subgroups or interest and other things that detract from the main issue. It's the curse of caring for everyone and wanting inclusion and diversity; if you subdivide too much it won't pass, it needs to be finding the least common denominator and go for that (we are all human and should have same rights; regardless of sex, gender, ethnicity, religion?)
I would hate for this great point of working on getting equal rights for everyone** in the USA would be more stalled because of infighting. I understand that there are a lot of issues and widespread fear that this will be another way for white people [women] to get ahead at the expense of people of colour or anyone, but I really hope that the group will unite and see the opportunity of working together is so much more than the alternative. One of the slogans chanted Saturday was "women united, cannot be divided". Even while women are a diverse group as they come - voting R, D or green for example, yet still there are opportunities to find common ground since at the moment, it is not all common with the general man, or everyone considered equal.
[I really hope what my head has been churning these last days came through in this post, but if I reread and notice it's off I will take it down.]
*also less savory demonstrations as the neo-nazis marching for Charles XII (annual commemoration of his time of death). freedom of speech and all.
**access to healthcare specifically in this case since it's so glaringly obvious it isn't. accessible good schools would be another one.
No comments:
Post a Comment