A few thoughts on the latest round of White Guilt discussions

[hooplala]

I refute the idea that the only way to accomplish anything in society is through activism, individuals challenge and change important aspects of our society considered standard or normal, pretty much constantly. Whereas activism, while important (I agree with you there), is often pure wankery.  The noise to information ratio of a large portion of activism is stacked largely in favor of noise.

It's important, but it is certainly not the only way to do it.

[Juana]

I never said it was the only way. I EXPLICITLY said it wasn't. Just that it's the major source of change on a larger level, especially legally. Activists get shit into court (Estelle Griswold comes to mind, as does decades of black lawyers doing their part to get things sucessfully through courts) that creates the change in law. They bring attention to issues (AIDS activism, trans* activism, etc.).

[hooplala]

no activism = no change in law

The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law.  But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.

[Juana]

Historically, that has been the case, Hoops. The kind of change activists fight for is frequently very, very hard to get. It takes decades of concerted effort, and who does the work but activists?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

no activism = no change in law

The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law.  But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.

Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?

[Don Coyote]

I wonder if an activist is like a hipster in that it is a label that is generally applied from the outside and   occasionally after the fact.
I don't even know what my point is right now. I'm a few stages away from random slaughter for no reason so my brain doesn't feel like it working.

[hooplala]

no activism = no change in law

The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law.  But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.

Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?

Actually getting into politics is a good start.  Harvey Milk was an activist, but not just an activist - he went farther.  And I don't mean to sound like I am disparaging activism, I just think its not the only way. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.

Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.

[Juana]

I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.

Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.

What?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.

Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.

Seems to me like you're redefining "activism" to mean only those obnoxious individuals whom you find repellent and offputting.

That's a lot like redefining certain other words, like "privileged white boy", to mean only those obnoxious individuals someone finds repellent or offputting.

It seems a little irrational to redefine a useful word that spans a wide range of possible behaviors to instead mean a very narrow set of hehaviors, and presume that everyone should follow your redefinition.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.

Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.

Seems to me like you're redefining "activism" to mean only those obnoxious individuals whom you find repellent and offputting.

That's a lot like redefining certain other words, like "privileged white boy", to mean only those obnoxious individuals someone finds repellent or offputting.

It seems a little irrational to redefine a useful word that spans a wide range of possible behaviors, and presume that everyone should follow your redefinition.

Naw.  I just know how humans behave when they clump up into groups.  Or even when they potentially lump up into groups.  The internal politics becomes more important than the original cause, and everyone spends all their time trying to out-pure each other.

And, as I said, if you AREN'T willing or able to pass every test, then you're worse than an active opponent..."Part of the problem".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

no activism = no change in law

The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law.  But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.

Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?

Actually getting into politics is a good start.  Harvey Milk was an activist, but not just an activist - he went farther.  And I don't mean to sound like I am disparaging activism, I just think its not the only way.

I think that you may be using a fairly narrow definition of activism that doesn't include working for change from within the system. What do you mean by "he went farther"? In what ways was his "going farther" outside the scope of the definition of activism?

Do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. was, or was not, an activist?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.

Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.

Seems to me like you're redefining "activism" to mean only those obnoxious individuals whom you find repellent and offputting.

That's a lot like redefining certain other words, like "privileged white boy", to mean only those obnoxious individuals someone finds repellent or offputting.

It seems a little irrational to redefine a useful word that spans a wide range of possible behaviors, and presume that everyone should follow your redefinition.

Naw.  I just know how humans behave when they clump up into groups.  Or even when they potentially lump up into groups.  The internal politics becomes more important than the original cause, and everyone spends all their time trying to out-pure each other.

And, as I said, if you AREN'T willing or able to pass every test, then you're worse than an active opponent..."Part of the problem".

And who, exactly, are you claiming does this? Do engineers do it? Oil workers? Retail workers? Scientists? Do I do it? Am I doing it right now?

Be specific, please.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

if you have a problem with the way a specific person approaches an issue, my suggestion is to take it up with them specifically rather than lumping everyone who shares some values with that person into some lazy category and dismissing them all.

[AFK]

If I may, I think there may be a little conflation/confusion going on here with terminology.  Typically, we would refer to effecting change within a system as Advocacy, not activism.  So when I am meeting with stakeholders to try to advance policy change or reforms, I am engaging in advocacy, not activism.  If I was in the street demonstrating or protesting a policy or policy change, then I'm an activist.  And then of course when I go into State Senator Jones' office and tell him to vote no on marijuana legalization, I've become a lobbyist.