(the continuation of a conversation begun at dove’s blog, in flight)

“I need to see plainly what is the case: not what I wish was the case, however desperate that wish might be.

But oddly enough, making those things explicit made them less powerful, it made those potential betrayals less probable, and it made solidarity more possible.”

The entire post was good, and explained very well the issues, and solidarity, but these two things caught my eye. Especially the word explicit.

I am not sure where I’m going with this, but I’ve been thinking of (and almost writing about) sanctuary lately, in regards to immigrants and refugees and others. And the betrayal of that sanctuary, especially for fleeing torture victims.

And the necessity of building, from the ground up, a solidarity among very distrustful, betrayed people… not only immigrants but native born. Of all types and in many places. For those that believed the promises of movements of times past, and those who believed the fairy tales countries tell about themselves and others.

And how, in order to build this, and to have this trust, there is the necessity of being very explicit in words, promises, and possible future betrayals.

That’s not quite what I want to say, I don’t think… but while I think there should be an overarching theme, I also believe that the time for catchy phrases and platitudes is long past. That things need to be very clear, very concise, very explicit, very truthful… sort of like those chimes across the water.

Hmmm… still not quite it, but that’s the gist. Will see if I can add more clarity tomorrow ;)

Put more of it on paper Nanette. Get it out of your head and onto the screen: you have things to say that need hearing.

How do we build that—yes, I think being explicit helps. At the least, what our navel gazing did was put us in a position where we couldn’t betray ourselves or each other and then claim to have done it ‘by mistake,’ by ‘not realising.’

Thinking on a bit more—one of the core problems (at least as I see it) is that it’s so often easier for a relatively powerless group to get what they want at the expense of an even more powerless group than at the expense of a more powerful group.

I have a couple of thoughts on this, which tend in very different directions.

The first is that we need to ‘map the margins.’ I’m thinking of something Kimberle Crenshaw wrote
Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence against Women of Colour

What happens when we look at the places where two relatively (though not absolutely) powerless groups intersect?

So in the case of the (real) concern shannika and MLAC were expressing, that gains for Meso-American immigrants would be at the expense of African-Americans --what happens if we look at, for example, the needs of families that are both Meso-American and African-American—that have it in their hands both ways, whether through dual heritage or through whom they’ve chosen to live with and love. If the needs of those in such families/partnerships/relations are placed front and centre—if they provide a kind of focal point—does it then become harder for the kind of betrayal we’ve been talking about elsewhere to take place?

The other thing I find myself thinking about is game theory—horribly utilitarian, but I think there is some stuff to be gleaned from it—to some extent I think the situation prospective coalition partners find themselves in is similar to that of the ‘prisoner’s dilemma.’

But yes—absolutely it needs to be explicit. And it needs to recognise that there’s no point in just asking people to ‘learn to be more trusting.’ Having been told that myself from time to time, one might as well ask somebody to learn how to fly to the moon—at least in the absence of specifics, tangible evidence of commitment. We need to be asking ‘How can you trust me?” I think, rather than assuming we have a right to be trusted.

And making clear the connections between different issues I think, generally: for example, that wall they’re building to keep immigrants out can just as easily be used to keep USun’s in.

Anywy—I’m rambling again. What do you think?

I’m way too tired to write anything very coherent, but I just want to jot down some notes, so to speak. So I don’t lose the thought.

what happens if we look at, for example, the needs of families that are both Meso-American and African-American --

If the needs of those in such families/partnerships/relations are placed front and centre—if they provide a kind of focal point—does it then become harder for the kind of betrayal we’ve been talking about elsewhere to take place?

I am not sure, but I don’t think so. For one thing, I don’t think there are all that many that would fit that description, although there are Meso-Americans who are of African descent. Many don’t want to be associated with the Black American experience, or to be thought of as such.

We need to be asking ‘How can you trust me?” I think, rather than assuming we have a right to be trusted.

I think this is key. Not only for black Americans, but for the poor whites, for poorer women, and for so many others. None of us will get where we need to go without the others, but asking what would allow people to trust us and each other, and listening to what is rather than what we want to hear, might be a good start.

I’ll try and expand on this and other points - darn, I have almost a thought on the solidarity angle, and the Neimoller poem, only it needs to be turned around. The poem, that is… or rather, the um.. something. Self interest. Man… (notes) it’s not because if you don’t speak for them they’ll come for you (although that is part of it). No ifs…

Oh well, it’ll come to me. Or not ;)

I think the “fenced in” thing is a good mental and visual image, for that proposed wall.. and one that just may work on the US side, as we love to think of ourselves as free to roam, or to get into our gas guzzling SUV and just take off into the sunset. Til you hit the wall that is.

I think one thing I was trying to get a hold of, or at least trying to articulate, is the quid pro quo factor and if it’s any good. “I’ll stand up for you if you stand up for me, otherwise we’ll hang separately” or whatever.

I think that, by removing the “if”, and just somehow getting across “I’ll stand up for you.” full stop, that might go a long way towards building trust. It seems to me that the “if”, the sort of horsetrading type utilitarian feel of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours allows for the entrance of cynicism and also betrayal. Or feeling a sense of betrayal, I guess, even if there really isn’t one. Something catnip said somewhere is sort of reflective of this, I think.

Anyway, I was thinking of the concepts of the ACLU or Amnesty International, both of which have sort of that philosophy (although about different matters), even if it’s possible that they sometimes fail in application, no doubt partially because the need is so huge and they must choose their battles. And they do have “if’s” ... if you are oppressed or if you have a constitutional claim or whatever. But still, I think the general idea of “I’ll stand up for you” full stop can be applied somewhat.

Am not sure if this thought is going anywhere, lol.

I think it does—get rid of that ‘if’ and I think things start to look more promising.

There’s still something we need to get at in terms of things like prioritising—choosing ones battles—both in terms of how those choices are made and ensuring the ways in which they are fought don’t end up pitting relatively vulnerable groups against each other.

(Is this similar to that old idea about unions being organisations intended to take workers out of competition with each other—in theory, at least?)

On reflection, I think “I’ll stand with you” is a better term/concept than I’ll stand up for you. Although both should be included and explicit. The one more implies equal cooperation and unity, whereas the other more implies help and a sort of paternalism (to my mind, anyway. Depending on the situation).

Okay, just had to get that out, lol.

There’s still something we need to get at in terms of things like prioritising—choosing ones battles—both in terms of how those choices are made and ensuring the ways in which they are fought don’t end up pitting relatively vulnerable groups against each other.

Yes, I agree. And it probably is like the old unions idea… although, shameful to say, I know little about unions. I have a British friend and in conversation once he was asking if I’d heard about this famous lefty milemark, or this famous union thing, or this well known lefty book and so on… (no, no, no and no) - finally (and somewhat in frustration, I’m convinced) he said “Well, you must be a lefty from the heart because you know sod all about being one”. Eventually I convinced myself that was a compliment ;).

I think in pictures, so bear with me - whenever I think of the state of the left, or just of society in general now, in my mind I see little islands of people… the unions over here, the environmentalists there, white women mostly in this place, various other women mostly in that place, different races and ethnicities here there and everywhere and so on, every conceivable faction… globs of groups, some with little bridges into another group, but they are not very sturdy bridges… sort of like those rope ones you see in movies, maybe.

Everyone has somehow been convinced that if they don’t operate in their own interests, no one else will. Or few else will… thus you have some pulling this way, some pushing that way, and because of the gaps between them, or the rickety bridges, rightwing (or just manipulative) forces find it easy to separate a group out and attack it, like a lion with a zebra herd.

The others see, and some even may try to help, but because they have been culled, or separated out, the ones under attack are weakened regardless.

Now, when I imagine my perfect social movement, progressive family, whatever you want to call it… as you can probably guess, it’s a huge glob of people of all sorts, interests, goals - with no daylight between them, no way to cull any from the whole. When one group (of the wider group) is attacked, they are shuttled to the middle of the glob to fight from there, with all the other groups on the outside refusing to move or to allow this group to be singled out.

I would say that lack of doing this is what happened to the Democratic party in the US, but I’m not so sure that this sort of thing has ever really existed within the party, not in any real way. Or if it did, they sure lost the ability to stand up for one another very quickly, considering how short of time minority or women’s rights, or environmental ones and so on have been on the national agenda.

So, I am not sure how to get to this point, but I think this sort of answers the quote from you above. The priorities being whoever is vulnerable at the moment… and not in a ‘we’ll come to you and save the day’ type of thing, which I think is um… not demeaning but some other word, but more in a “okay,. you go ahead and save the day and we’ll back you up all the way’ type of thing. Allowing people the space and security to strengthen themselves and each other. Across borders and nationalities, which is the only way in this day and age to be really effective, I think.