Re: [pf] Multinationals take aim at protesters [long!]

by prichter1

19 December 2000 13:16 UTC

In a message dated 12/18/00 8:42:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, jdt@itol.com 
writes:

> Priscilla,
>      Do you have any ideas?  Can you tell more what you mean by "begin our
>  work in an organized way"?
>                  Jill
>  

This is why I was hoping for a discussion. Being a detail person or a 
logistical strategist is not my skill. I work more from reflection, so let me 
think out loud:

After the 1994 elections (the Contract (on) America election), a local 
newspaper called me and asked me 1) if there was a religious left and 2) if 
not, why.  Let me first state that I don't think that we need to be a 
religious movement, but I'm using this illustration to further my thinking.  
In answering this reporter, it was obvious that there was no 'religous left' 
that is/was organized in any meaningful way, and my reasons as to why have 
more to do with left leaning folks as a whole.

I said that, first, we tended to not see things through a religious prism.  
But I focused more on allowing ourselves to let our differences with each 
other define us and our reluctance to join with other movements that perhaps 
may have the same goal. I reminded her that many of the then leaders had come 
up through the sixties movements where suspicion of institutions was an 
important factor.  I did a lot of thinking out loud with this reporter 
(always a dangerous thing when talking to reporters you don't know), and I 
know that she talked to several other people too. She never ran the article 
and when I called her back to ask her why (with perhaps a touch of relief), 
she said that she could not get anything conclusive to write about from all 
her sources.  I think that this is telling. We talk a good game about uniting 
and community, but we are the product of our individualistic culture.

I can't believe for a moment that the religious right or the political right 
don't have significant differences. They have found alliances with one 
another despite this -- because they have a common enemy, us (and there are a 
lot of 'us').  Now: I'm not saying that their combative means are what we 
need: I think that, what we need first, is to use the tools that we idealize, 
like mediation and nonviolent tactics, to bring us together (wouldn't it be 
nice if the various Green groups could show us the way here). 

It would seem that we would need to set priorities in terms of an agenda, or 
at least to organize ourselves so that different groups focus on different 
aspects of problems we see as important -- e.g., the GMO/agriculture issues, 
transportation/emissions issues, water issues (both water usage and purity of 
water supply), &etc.  But working together in all of this.   We would 
certainly have to get over our suspicions about authority -- one of my 
beliefs is that we all have sources of authority but we don't acknowledge 
them, but that 's another sermon ;-)

We need to reach out more to what we used to call Middle America -- those who 
trust that things are being done for the common good.  The election is just 
another eye-opening for some -- and the general public did back away from 
Gingrich et.al. within a couple of years. So I think that there is more hope 
there than we might think.  I also think that we tend to alienate.

This brings me to the media: an important element in all of this, as they 
shape so much of what the public thinks are issues. After the Supreme Court 
ruled last week, my best friend (a staunch democrat) called, upset. She said, 
"I wonder what the recount will show?"  My stunned response was, "What 
recount?"  She said that certainly "they" would have to recount the ballots. 
I asked what gave her that idea, and she said that certainly the media would 
see to it that 'they' did.  I told her that I was far more cynical, and that 
'the media' is composed of corporate interests, and it wouldn't happen. She 
disagreed, but when Time Mag named Bush Man of the Year, she is backing down 
a bit.

My point here is this:  we have to realize that the media that people most 
often access is partisan and corporate.  And far more centralized than we 
acknowledge, despite the racks and racks of magazines in bookstores, the many 
tv stations we have access to, radio stations, and  popular internet news 
resources. If you look behind the scenes, a few corporations control the 
large number of these. 'They' are not our friends until we cultivate our own 
outlets and somehow get our version of truth out through lots of hard work. 
The media have been very successful in portraying us as a bunch of kooks who 
take to the streets and trash Starbucks for what is portrayed as no good 
reason (translation, punks just out to have a good time).

Enough rambling. Obviously I'm not a strategist.  Some of these same issues 
have been bandied about on the New American Dream conversations, which have 
been discontinued.  I am sorry about this, because this was one way to link a 
lot of concerned people who aren't linked very well with other causes. 

 I guess I think that, as a starting point, we need to find ways to link 
together and minimize our differences and to acknowledge that we are in a 
serious -- ok, I'll use the word -- *war*  over the future of the earth.

For those of you who are better strategists, how do we further an agenda that 
we so dearly believe in?

Blessings, Priscilla