A thought on social change & political activism

[me b zola]

Long before Cindy Sheehan was a household name, I had given some thought to social change and how it is achieved. I had come to the conclusion that most--if not every--social movement in US herstory was made up of two basic comonents: people who were considered radical and people who were considered more middle of the road average Joes who also wanted that social change. I also concluded that both types of activists were necessary for social change to occur.

From our earliest labor movements which had the radical Molly McGuires along with less radical people, to woman's sufferage, civil rights, and the push to end the Vietnam War, they all needed the radicals to push the agenda while the less radical average Joes who agreed that social change was needed and began speaking up and acting out.

It is the more radical activists who draw attention to the cause and push the agenda. The more radical activists also act as a type of buffer; if they weren't there to be called radical/nuts, then it would be the more moderate activists who would draw the ire of the powers-that-be and would be called radical. You may disagree with their tactics, but it is the more radical activists whom get you to be heard and not be treated not as a nut for having the audacity to ask for social change.

I believe that most of us here largely agree on the changes that we want to see occur in US foreign & domestic policy. Some agree with more outspoken/vocal tactics, some of us would like to see those changes occur through more modest means. It's all good, we're working towards the same goals and we will get there together.

Just remember what Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."





POWER TO THE PEOPLE

[babylonsister]

1. Great post! All the biographies I read as a kid were of

people who made a difference, not regardless of the consequences, but knowing what they might be.
From Booker T. Washington to Susan B. Anthony, they pushed the limits, and the world is a better place because of them.

[kentuck]

2. There have to be catalysts for change to happen...

That's why there are "radicals"..

[KEVINSDESK]

3. You miss the most important thing of all responsibility

I don't have time to go into the details of what you said ie:
that I agree with in the details, and I disagree with. I do
agree that your right, "people need to stand up to be
counted.  But, you have to also remember there is a thing
called responsibility.  When I say responsibility, I realize
that you think that I'm meaning responsibility to stand up.
But I'm not.  I'm talking about responsibility of those
standing up to realize that they are possibly taking away
beliefs and freedoms that other people hold and live with.
There comes a responsibility "to be right."  It's
just not as simple as you state. To use a cliché. "Just
because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a
thing." One could take your concept, (activism) and since
you haven't qualified it, take it from one end to the other of
the spectrum.  
So again, I restate, be careful what you wish for you may just
get it.

[me b zola]

4. The herstory we learn largely depends on who is writing the books

I wrote about relections that I have had about US social change from a historical pov. You may have a different opinion about how you would like to see social change occur, but your opinion doesn't change herstory. In modern times the US population has come to view the Abolitionists in a warm light, but they were hated in their time for their "radical views and actions".

[me b zola]

5. An additional thought on the subject

Social change can be for either good or bad. It's hard for many to see history as it is being made, but we have been living during a period of social change that has not been for good, although it follows the principles that I discussed in the OP.

It seems as though the powers that be in the rw have paid close attention to how social change occurs and are using those principles to gain power. Who would have ever thought (since the early sixties) that in the early years of the 21st century pharmacists would refuse to sell birth control to women? The radical rw has pushed this country almost into a theocracy, but they didn't do w/o the help of the not-so-insane wingers.

My point is that the rw et al have learned from history how social change occurs and are using those principles to take our rights & liberties from us. We would do well to understand how it works so that we may harness more of the power that is out there instead of demeaning it.

[hfojvt]

6. I'm not sure I would call ending the Vietnam or Iraq war a social change

Neither one of them is going to change our warlike, oil-addicted culture.

But I may be ignorant about more of it. For example, the whole ROTC off campus part of the sixties was confusing to me. I was not aware that ROTC was a requirement for all male college students in the 1960s. My dad never said anything about it, so I wonder when it started.

It does seem that the rightwing learned from the Vietnam era to make sure that the people in our armed forces are venerated. Failure to support the people 'defending our freedom' is right up there with burning the flag or torturing puppies. It just isn't done by decent people even if our armed forces are not even remotely 'defending our freedom.'

Alot of our social change has come through technology which was not pushed by any group, at least not for the purpose of social change, but only for the purpose of private profit.

In many ways, things have not changed, and it is a goal of the rightwing not to create social change, but to prevent it. They made a concerted effort to take over the media and universities with their money power and their 'think' tanks, but the 1940s movie "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" was also complaining about 'lying reporters' and 'public opinion, Taylor made' where Taylor was the guy who owned the newspaper.

[fed-up]

7. K/R n/t