"over the last few weeks it has been used by different people with all sorts of intentions"
I was on the underground at the weekend and heard a couple of drunk lads in football scarves chanting "from the river to the sea, Arsenal will win the league". (I think it was Arsenal? It was a bit indistinct but the scarf colour matches).
Amazingly, they then had a brief conversation about how "some people think that's a bit problematic", before switching into a chant about a sexy Argentinian. I swear I am not making any of this up.
How much ink was spilled explaining how "Defund the police" didn't mean "abolish the police"? As a rule, if you spend more energy explaining why your snappy slogan isn't problematic than you do campaigning for what it is you _do_ believe in, it's probably an unhelpful slogan.
100%. Also was funny in the immediate aftermath of that moment to see lefties over here trying to adopt it despite the situations not being analogous in any conceivable way.
In mid 2020, in the early stages of a frightening pandemic, after outdoor sporting events and other gatherings had been banned because we still had little understanding of the nature of transmission or the long term impact of the disease, the BLM protests / riots swept across the west.
This impulsive reaction of the crowd was “Zamboni’d” as being necessary because “racism and oppression is a public health issue“ and they soon had the blessing of over a thousand activist doctors to do as they pleased. We knew this was bullshit, and deep down they probably knew this as well, but they were following intersectional logic, not science. It looked utterly incoherent to anyone outside their epistemic bubble; a “two tier pandemic”.
This profoundly damaged the public perception of healthcare professionals as being rigorous and apolitical, and fed directly into the later anti-vax movement.
Is that "zamboni-ing" or merely cowardice? I assumed the latter and that no one had the guts to say, in effect "you think that racism (if that's what George Floyd/Defund the Police was really about) is important, but it's not as important as Covid so stay at home".
I'm really curious about what are the best ways for activists to behave then.
Let's hear the ways that trying to change the world for the better, hidden and tucked in a corner, not causing any concern, and imagine how that will turn out.
No lasting victory for humanity was won without causing disruption.
Probably - and hear me out - activists should act in a way which broadens their political base rather than narrowing it? What should one do if a) they think climate change is an urgent political priority but b) think the Israel-Palestine situation is really complicated and not helped by people using slogans which implicitly call for the destruction of the Israeli state?
Thanks for asking! I've actually written about this a few times. Here's probably the best summary of my views on the best way for activists to actually achieve the changes they want:
I appreciate that you're probably not a regular reader but that's a remarkably ungenerous response! What if (hear me out) I think climate action and peace in the Middle East is important but would rather activists did things that made those things more likely rather than less?
To give you validation, James, I think zooming in on a single phrase, loading it with one's own meaning, and consequently dismissing a much larger argument out of hand is about as 'bad faith' as it's possible to get.
"over the last few weeks it has been used by different people with all sorts of intentions"
I was on the underground at the weekend and heard a couple of drunk lads in football scarves chanting "from the river to the sea, Arsenal will win the league". (I think it was Arsenal? It was a bit indistinct but the scarf colour matches).
Amazingly, they then had a brief conversation about how "some people think that's a bit problematic", before switching into a chant about a sexy Argentinian. I swear I am not making any of this up.
How much ink was spilled explaining how "Defund the police" didn't mean "abolish the police"? As a rule, if you spend more energy explaining why your snappy slogan isn't problematic than you do campaigning for what it is you _do_ believe in, it's probably an unhelpful slogan.
100%. Also was funny in the immediate aftermath of that moment to see lefties over here trying to adopt it despite the situations not being analogous in any conceivable way.
Surely "covfefe" is an even better example of Trump's coterie defending literally anything he says than "obamagate".
Whoever was his press secretary back then (Sean Spicer? Sarah Huckabee Sanders?) announced "I think we all know what the President meant".
In mid 2020, in the early stages of a frightening pandemic, after outdoor sporting events and other gatherings had been banned because we still had little understanding of the nature of transmission or the long term impact of the disease, the BLM protests / riots swept across the west.
This impulsive reaction of the crowd was “Zamboni’d” as being necessary because “racism and oppression is a public health issue“ and they soon had the blessing of over a thousand activist doctors to do as they pleased. We knew this was bullshit, and deep down they probably knew this as well, but they were following intersectional logic, not science. It looked utterly incoherent to anyone outside their epistemic bubble; a “two tier pandemic”.
This profoundly damaged the public perception of healthcare professionals as being rigorous and apolitical, and fed directly into the later anti-vax movement.
Is that "zamboni-ing" or merely cowardice? I assumed the latter and that no one had the guts to say, in effect "you think that racism (if that's what George Floyd/Defund the Police was really about) is important, but it's not as important as Covid so stay at home".
I'm really curious about what are the best ways for activists to behave then.
Let's hear the ways that trying to change the world for the better, hidden and tucked in a corner, not causing any concern, and imagine how that will turn out.
No lasting victory for humanity was won without causing disruption.
Probably - and hear me out - activists should act in a way which broadens their political base rather than narrowing it? What should one do if a) they think climate change is an urgent political priority but b) think the Israel-Palestine situation is really complicated and not helped by people using slogans which implicitly call for the destruction of the Israeli state?
Answer: they tune out the climate change stuff...
Thanks for asking! I've actually written about this a few times. Here's probably the best summary of my views on the best way for activists to actually achieve the changes they want:
https://takes.jamesomalley.co.uk/p/activists-should-make-fighting-climate
Thank you for the reply. I think describing it as "the changes they want" tells me all I need to know, thank you though!
I appreciate that you're probably not a regular reader but that's a remarkably ungenerous response! What if (hear me out) I think climate action and peace in the Middle East is important but would rather activists did things that made those things more likely rather than less?
To give you validation, James, I think zooming in on a single phrase, loading it with one's own meaning, and consequently dismissing a much larger argument out of hand is about as 'bad faith' as it's possible to get.
Good post. No need to be so self deprecating (calling yourself and A***hole is a bit harsh lol).
You needed to show that stuff