the slacker uprising and revolution?

Armed with underwear and ramen noodles the youth of America are set to overthrow the failed system! They will wait no longer, they will sit no more and they will apathetically listen to no one but Barack Obama anymore. Young people are fed up, that is for certain, but to what extent and will their record numbers in the polls really revolutionize American political life?

Michael Moore recently released his fifth major film, Slacker Uprising and is giving it out for free (download from site).

"Slacker Uprising" takes place in the wake of "Fahrenheit 9/11," during the run-up to the 2004 election, as I traveled for 42 days across America, visiting 62 cities in a failed attempt to remove George W. Bush from office. My goal was to help turn out a record number of young voters and others who had never voted before. (That part was a success. Young adults voted in greater numbers than in any election since 18-year-olds were given the right to vote. And the youth vote was the only age group that John Kerry won.)

While this may have been a failed experiment in mobilizing young people to actually effect change, we may be able to see some of the results in this year's election combined with a number of other factors. In the primaries, the youth vote was very strong - more young people than ever before voted in the primaries. This coming election there are so many young people registered and registering to vote that I would not be surprised to see the youth vote carry some regions. With the candidates picked and running through the mud, the real question becomes: is voting really the most effective way to make change? Is voting for one man or the other really going to show us a reversal in American political action?

At the end of the movie trailer, Michael Moore says, ". . . the young people of America, you're the ones who are gunna do it, you're leading the revolution."

Getting young people out to vote will not show us a different America. Granted this is a great chance to get more young people involved in civic and community action, but the chances are slim if the movement only works through ramen and registering. The opportunities for long-term engagement need to be offered if young people are going to really make change in this country. The young people of today are hardly prepared to lead a revolution in America. If we look back to the 60s and 70s (an era of high political stakes, massive movement building, and student protest) we can see a different type of young person.

Today young people are tucked away, sheltered, and left unaware of the wide world outside. In the 60s you had students who were raised by parents affected by crises, they were first generation at college, they were raised in the steel mill, they were right up close to the issues of the day. Not to mention they were raised during the build up of a very active time with the Civil Rights Movement coming to a peak and that morphing into a number of other issues. Students during that time were able to get involved because they felt marginalized even with their middle class college backgrounds. Today, students are also marginalized and excluded, but young people cling to a apathetic stance as opposed to an involved one. This may be a result of our upbringing. The best student movement examples come from Berkley California with the Free Speech Movement (FSM). What resulted as the FSM moved from Civil Rights to Free Speech to ending the Vietnam War to spurring a counter culture, was a split thinking. One track that led people to think that the students were dirty hippies who were bad for challenging the status quo. The other track led people to romanticize fighting the man and rioting against the system. This romanticizing has led many people to try to recreate movements of the past.

Probably one of the most detrimental results of the 60s and 70s student activist era was the institutionalizing of campus activism. In a documentary that I viewed about the FSM it was clear to see this new mode of control take place as students were allowed to 'table' on campus. Now in order to take any action on campus you have to register, open a student account if you plan to raise money, file your planned events, get proper security if it is a large event, and jump through any number of hoops to be approved to engage in activism. In December 2007, Matt Birkhold wrote on student power and activism,

". . .colleges want to make sure that students do not get too radical and recreate the late 60s. To accomplish this, they monitor everything student groups do. When student groups get too radical or begin to question university policies, they typically lose university support. Because students want to get their message out, they create flyers that will be approved by the university. Unfortunately, this is too big of a compromise because all the time students spend getting flyers approved could be spent organizing or studying. By continuing with university approved activism students are giving up a great deal of power and giving the university far too much. This must be seen as both a diversion and a way to absorb radicalism."

University administrations learned from the past so that events of that era could never be repeated. Student activism has been boxed in and so most students wouldn't even imagine some of the most effective actions to make change on their campuses. To quote FSM leader Mario Savio,

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

The idea of ungovernability is how real change occurs, when something is ground to a halt it is forced to engage that which is preventing it from continuing. This was a tactic used throughout the 60s and 70s as well as during actions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. Making the townships ungovernable was how the black majority was able to force change.

In light of this, Universities have created a sterile vacuum for student action within the campus setting. For one example, during the 80s on Michigan State University's (MSU) campus students took over the administration building to demand a more diverse faculty. This was effective because it ground the university to a halt. All money was moved in and out of the administration building. Since they took over on pay day, and for a prolonged time after, the finances of the university were shutdown. Sadly, these movements were phenomenas, after negotiations were entered and actions were said to be taken - the follow up was gone because the movement has dissipated. Piecemeal outcomes were won for a long and often violent movement building. As Nelson Mandela noted, the oppressor defines the nature of the struggle. When Reagan had the national guard corral and gas students at a peaceful rally at Berkley, that marked the end of a long period of highly involved student activism.

Yesterday, Barack Obama came to speak at MSU's campus as the most recent presidential election draws ever closer. The student turnout was incredible, Obama's speech the usual, but still good. However the whole time I couldn't help but think about how sterile an environment this was for student activism and political involvement. Everyone is corralled into a small area, the police are everywhere, no signs are allowed, and the politician isn't there to talk to you. He is there to deliver sound bites to the press and media, your concerns are not that important. It almost felt like a day wasted on youth - get out of class, skip this, miss work - to hear a presidential candidate deliver My vote in Michigan as far as the Presidential election is concerned does not matter. Right, it is unimportant, since we have a winner take all system and McCain is pulling his campaign out of Michigan, Barack Obama will take the state and I won't even have to vote. This is where it is important to remind people that there is more than one man to vote for this election (and not even voting per say). I am a strong proponent of involvement in local politics because that is all that really matters.

And so back to the idea of a Slacker Uprising, we have a long way to come if we are going to have a mass movement of students. They may be going to the polls, but we need students running in the city councils, volunteering in their neighborhoods, taking action for their local environment, and caring for their communities. The opportunity and threat present in the 60s is not here today. The average college student is not going to jump into a rally because they see no need to. I agree with Michael Moore on one thing and that is the belief that it will be young people who make the greatest change in America. I firmly believe that young people are the key to social change. This can be evidenced by the 60s and 70s, and even today. I see its potential, but I am not sure that just engaging young people to vote is the best way. There needs to be a more comprehensive knowledge of how things are before involvement will lead to a revolution of sorts. We cannot seek to recreate the past, we need to learn and develop new tactics, we need to research how our power as students and young people can best make change. Birkhold reminds us that, "Students have power; they just have to learn how to use it."

Is participation to perpetuate an extremely flawed structure better than choosing rather to engage people and work for a justice deferred by that structure? The one decision here is the power in your right (or left) hand on election day - will you only check a box (fill a bubble, etc.), or will you help ideas become more than paper promises?

Previously posted on the Young People For Blog.

millenials engaged in today's society (live @ TBA)

Read the original post at Young People For.

"Generation Y, the Millenial generation, has been called many things, the most insulting of which are: impatient, self-absorbed, and uninvolved. We, as members of the generation that grew up with the Internet on our laps and 9/11 in our classroom everyday, disagree. While many pop-culture pundits declare that our generation is not involved in formal politics and traditional community involvement, we have been engaging our world in new and different ways. S.C.O.U.T. B.A.N.A.N.A. (SB), an organization led and founded by young people, is working at the forefront of Generation Y's engagement. We believe young people are the key to social change and important vessels of cultural exchange."
- S.C.O.U.T. B.A.N.A.N.A. 2008

The engagement of Millenals or Generation Y is something that is very important to me and something that the organization thatI run is committed to on a more international scale. At Take Back America, today the panel is talking about the engagement of American millenial youth in grassroots politics across the US - Millenials Rising: Young Voters Revitalizing Democracy.

This engagement is something that we have seen with the most recent political campaigns. Young people are attacking the polls with a fervor unprecedented and for some reason it is frightening to many political pundits. Young people are coming out in force on issues they care about and yet still older generations say that we are just here for the fun of being involved and not necessarily to make a change. The New Left of the 60's and 70's is no longer so relevent, but it is not irrelevent. As millenials and the new face of the new left, we can learn from past experiences in activism and tactics, we can build on the past successes, we can connect the new left with the now left. I say "left" as only a way to play with words. Yet again I want to stress the importance of not cutting anyone out of the movement. We have no time to push out Republicans for the sole reason of being Republican or dividing people over basic party politics when what we are fostering is a movement that is not trapped in a party. The ideas and values we believe in as "progressives" are not only allowed in a liberal mind, or a in democrat's speech book. People are, or at least should be, our passion - not the division of and dislike for certain people. No one can be written off, no one can be looked over as already lost.

The opening speaker said about young people, "we are ready, we have the passion, the dedication - we are tired of the same old politics!" This always reminds me of a line that a speaker told the 2007 fellowship class. To paraphrase: when the politicians are too old to stand up for what's right and make their voice heard, then it is time for them to step down. We no longer have the luxury of letting our government decide what is best and accept it while playing our video games and watching MTV - and we, as millenials, recognize that fact. Young people are no longer just the demographic that can be relegated to a non-influential voting bloc. We as millenials have more resources than any other generation. We have numerous organizations itching to support our work, we have the opportunity to be our own political pundits by way of the internet, we have more social networking sites than probably necessary. Regardless these are huge points for mobilization along with the traditional organizing movement tactics of face-to-face interaction, sit-ins, talk-ins, protests, and putting up flyers.

Call me a millenial - interested in MTV, South Park, hip hop culture, or Facebook - but do not call me disengaged and unimportant in today's society or American politics.

what could be more powerful than power? (live @ Take Back America)

Read the original post at Young People For.

When you begin to recognize your personal ability and resolve to make a difference incredible things happen. There is no doubt in my mind that whether you are a budding activist, a student beginning to learn more than you thought, a traveler meeting harsh new realities, or a weathered volunteer (worker - maybe you get paid to do this) in the progressive movement - your ability to truly impact the course of history is locked in this self-actualization of the power you hold, which is your ability to influence someone else's life. Influencing just one person is important, but that one person is part of a larger global community and they can then influence another person, and the chain will continue. Power is most often alluded to fall into the hands of the politically and economicly wealthy, those who exploit, manipulate, and profit from others, those who sit in the plush offices and government buildings. This I say is not fact. However, one may argue, these people do hold the power - they do make the decisions and they do shape our lives. While this remains a fair argument there still remains nothing more powerful than a person with a passion. No official, no government, no financial powerhouse, no one can stop that person from influencing others except by way of death. So I say give me passion, give me freedom, give me liberty or give me death (paraphrase: Patrick Henry).

Today begins one of the largest conferences of progressive peoples in the US, except maybe for the US Social Forum. 2000 people gather in Washington D.C. to discuss the prospect of reversing the painful and extremely detrimental policies that have shaped or seemingly broken and divided country. The opening speaker told us that we, who gathered today, were the heart of the movement. To that I say no, we are not the heart, we may be a base for launching, we may be the facilitators for a change, but we are not the heart - because the heart of the movement lies in the people, every person. We are the privileged of the movement gathered in a fancy hotel with classic music and opulent settings. While we are the privileged of the movement I like to think that we are also the actively conscious. We do not overlook our privileged place in the movement. The heart of the movement is not ours to possess, but we can be the blood to pump that heart.

Diane Archer was the opening speak on the issue of US healthcare. She noted how public healthcare systems were viewed in a bad light. Many people in America are extremely skeptical of public health insurance, but the private model also has its deep downfalls. The goal now based on the Hacker model is to create a hybrid system where people can choose their private insurance if they want it, but there will also be the public insurance choice. America has one of the worst public health systems in the world, even ranking behind developing countries. We need to make a change. Diana emphasized that it is, "we who move mountains, not the President or Congress." She noted that when we are organized and when we voice our beliefs then we can create the necessary change.

The always powerful speaker, Van Jones, founder of Green for All and dedicated fighter against social inequality inspired action for a green economy. He says, "We need a WWII level mobilization or there may not be a 22nd Century!" The fact that a clean and green economy has more jobs and has the potential to end poverty in America and combat global warming is more than a dream. The wall standing in front of that goal is the political challenge. Our current government is on the side of big business, war mongers, and the polluters because that is what our current government is comprised of: leaders of big business, etc. Jones told us that the solar and wind industries is where we should look to as examples and we need unconditional political will and public support for a green economy to create jobs. The anniversary of the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. is just next month. He died at 39 years old, Jones noted that he was also 39 years old. King was assassinated not because he was a voice, but because he was able to link the issues. King advocated for an inclusive economy for everyone and even spoke that democratic socialism was a better model. "We will reject 'sink or swim' politics," says Jones. People in America should not be sinking as they were during and after Katrina, no one in America should face that. What I think is more common sense than a repeated mantra is, "we are all in this together." Jones said this and I could not agree more, we are in this together and we need to recognize that we as people are now more than ever a globally linked community. Why can America not be the example for this instead of just presenting an American Dream?

"This movement is about Taking America FORWARD! (Jones)"

Candidate for Maryland Congerss, Donna Edwards, told us that a lose can be a win. I would even say that the we are seeing a new politics of momentum growing in America. Even though a progressive candidate may have lost the vote, they did not lose the attention of the people. This is a great example of where dreams can become realities. Progressive values are shared by many people - the views, values, and vision of the community are shared. Edwards said that if being progressive means health for all, a green economy, and getting out of Iraq where we never should have been, then she is proud to call herself progressive. The political will is lacking in within our political parties. I say this and I am no proponent for party politics at all. The Democrats gained the majority with a issue and goal in mind: get out of Iraq. They got lost along the way in rhetoric that said ending the war did not support the troops. Edwards said that if her family and friends who fought in Vietnamwere stil alive today they would say that nothing more supportive of the troops would be to get them out of harms way. On my way to the conference I met a lady in the Reagan airport that questioned me about my button against the war in Iraq. She talked about peace activists and other protestors at a war memorial. They stood on the ground dedicated to the lives of those who gave their lives in something that many did not agree with. She said that her family members who fought in Vietnam would be upset that there would be protest at a memorial. Because while they agreed with the protestors, they could not agree with the lack of respect. This is something that our movement needs to constantly keep in mind. We may disagree with many people, but that cannot be reason for disrespect. Edwards noted that people often call to honor our troops, but where is the honor in needless death? She emphasized the need to engage international institutions. When she enters congress Edwards said she will need the movement to have her back - because we are the ones with the real power.

People power is real and its actualization is growing within the public. As cliche as it may be, the power is in you! Believe in what you do and others will also begin to believe.

the definition debate: what is a progressive?

Throughout history many banners have flown in the name of freedom, many different colors and styles spurred movements on to revolution and victory. From the Star Spangled Banner of the American Revolution to the red banners in the streets of China to the political banners of modern times. These streaming bits of cloth are more than physical symbols born by flag bearers. These banners are accompanied by boxes of thought and explicit doctrines of belief. We rally around banners, they lead us to freedom, they lead us to liberty, and they lead us to justice. But this what the banners of the past have lead us to today? We are now forced to rally behind one banner or another, we are forced to make a choice, we are forced to fight for freedom with conditions - yet freedom is unconditional.

Breaking over the horizon atop a mound of inequalities, injustices, and failed ideas rises a new banner, however this banner has no one flag bearer. It is a banner that waves and weaves between many people and multiple beliefs. This banner is a meshed quilt of the banners long since past and new lengths of fabric, innovately designed banners. This banner of sorts also bears a title: Progressive. However this title is unlike the titles from the banners of the past. This banner changes shape as it is held aloft to unite for a common cause.

The defining and constricting of this term, progressive, was a topic of great contention at the 4th Annual National Summit for Progressive Leaders of 2008 run by Young People For(YP4). I had many long discussion about what it means, the implications of the term, and the worries of a dogma growing within the progressive movement. To give a starting point:

From my "Hella Pone" workshop group representing Northern California, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin -

A progressive is: open minded, inclusive, compassionate, proactive and engaged in positive change, innovative, sustainable, optimistic, idealistic, for equality and justice, informed and conscious, evolving, and a leader challenging the status quo

The most important thing to remember is that the term progressive has a long historical and political connotation. Progressivism grew in the 1920s as a response to industrialization and traditional conservativism as well as to the more radical socialist and anarchist movements of the time. The American Progressive Party was born in the 1930s and advanced under Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Woodrow Wilson (?), and Franklin Roosevelt. Historically "progressives" advocated for worker's rights and social justice. Early progressives were proponents of anti-trust laws and the regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. The principles of Progressivism and the early Progressive Movement would lay the foundation for future progressive thought and politics. Even wikipedia notes that the precise criteria for what constitutes "progressivism" varies worldwide. Here are some of the common (historical) progressive tenets outlined:

Ballot initiatives where citizens approve proposed laws through a direct vote, initiatives where citizens could proposed laws for legislation, direct primary, direct election of US Senators, referendum where citizens could vote to rescind laws, and women's suffrage. Early progressives also called for a centralization of government to reduce the number of officials and eliminate overlapping authority. At the start of the Progressive Movement government corruption was near an all time high. They sought to promote professional administrators to deal with this issue. Trust-busting, socialism (government working for the public good), laissez-faire market belief, and regulation of large corporations represented the economic tenets. Environmentally progressives called for increases in national parks. On the social justice side, early progressives supported the development of professional social workers, the creation of settlement housing (basically a community center operated by professional social workers to increase the standard of living in inner cities), enacting child labor laws (to end children in the workplace), promoting organized labor and the prohibition (alcohol was a deterrent to achieving success for the cause).

For our purposes I think we are, in a way, giving the term a boost. Where progressive used to represent a political party or economic theory, it now represents a set of basic values that seem very simple for everyone to agree upon. Young People For lists the issues that fall under the progressive title as: civil rights, constitutional liberty, immigrant rights, independent judiciary, LGBT rights, marriage equality, access to higher education, religious freedom, environmental protection, voting rights, civic participation, women's rights, worker's rights, human rights, international issues, environmental justice, equal rights, I think John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress said it best, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see it as an attitude towards the politics of today. It is a thought process that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, which attempts to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy of ideologies. There is an excellent article (click here) on what progressivism means today in WireTap magazine written by a young person.

For our purposes today I believe the term progressive is a way to develop a focused set of values while encompassing many issue bases. The progressive term allows people to live and work outside the boxes of society. You can be a republican, a democrat, liberal, economically conservative, socialist, black, white, red, blue - you are not forced to conform to a certain norm - you can fall under the progressive terminology if you share the same values and visions for our world. This is a dangerous area in any movement when we begin to confine our thought and set a type of dogma for ourselves to follow. If you are a republican you are no less progressive, if you are a socialist you are not too radically progressive, if you are not a vegetarian you are no less progressive, if you embody the full range of progressive thought that does not mean that you are not and cannot be a progressive. It is often difficult to allow for this openness of a term because we are stuck in an old way of thinking that limits our abilities to accept. We are trapped by our own postmodern love of labeling ourselves and creating the other.

We stream to the progressive banner seeking a doctrine, an ideology, or a mantra to rule the day. But the banner needs to be People. As one of my good philosophy friends explained to me, and I paraphrase, at the end of the day we are all just fictional characters living in a world that we have created for ourselves. Our identities are all constructed from what we choose to think or what history has developed We label and fit ourselves into methods The banner is not Progressivism, but it is People. If we lose sight of that idea, then the rebirth of the progressive movement has already failed. People are our end goal and focus. We are not here to advance our self-interest or force our ideology. Within the progressive movement our focus is People not Progressivism and we cannot forget. The banner needs to remain people or we as the progressive movement will just become another title, another dogma of boxed thought - we need to remain open and innovative and changing, we need ensure that we do not become more than an applied method of thinking. The banner is not Progressive, the banner is People.

Power and the Problem with Youth Activism

Read the original post here on the Young People For Blog by: Matt Birkhold | Dec 24, 2007 |

Courtney Martin has recently noted that there is no shortage of activism of college campuses. However, according to Martin ("The Problem With Youth Activism," American Prospect, November 19), much student activism is ineffective because students have been pacified by what she calls the institutionalization of student activities and activism. In defense of student activists, Tim Fernholz ("The Kids Are Alright, Campus Progress, November, 27) argues that Martin is wrong and that her basic premise is indicative of a failure to understand politics. Fernholz goes on to argue that today's college activists are smarter then those of the 60s because they are willing to work within the system instead of engaging in protest, boycotts, and civil disobedience. Both Fernholz and Martin make some valid points. Yet neither mentions power in any regard. My aim is to make their conversation more complex by discussing how power impacts student activism.

Politics is primarily about implementing an agenda that will enable a particular vision of the world to become reality. This requires power. Consequently, politicians and their staff are constantly finding ways to retain power while aspiring politicians seek ways to gain it. In the realm of electoral politics, power is usually gained and retained through funding. In other realms however, power is found within people. This aspect of people power was understood particularly well in the 1930s and 40s by labor unions.

In 1936-37, workers at a General Motors plant in Flint, Michigan began a 44-day sit down strike where workers occupied the plant for 44 days and refused to work. The company responded by asking the state to send in the police and National Guard to put workers back on the assembly line. Workers continued to strike and, 44 days later, GM formally recognized the United Auto Workers. Importantly, these workers understood that without their labor, cars could not be produced. They saw themselves as the most important aspect of automobile manufacturing. They understood they had power at the point of production, and that when they exerted this power collectively, they had more power than the people who signed their checks.

Student anti Vietnam War activists began to understand their power at the point of production in 1967 when they shut down the Oakland, California Draft Induction Center. Antiwar activists realized that draftees were needed by the state if they were to continue producing war, and that if they could shut down the draft induction center, they could halt the production of war. Student power at the point of production was further realized during the great student strike of 1968 at Columbia University. Following the lead of Harlem community activists and black student activists, SDS leader Mark Rudd organized white students to occupy campus buildings understanding that if students occupied buildings, the research needed to produce weapons used in the war could not continue. These three situations are important because they provide examples of human beings exerting power at the point of production after the legal avenues of change had been exhausted.

It is this very point that Courtney Martin understands but Tim Fernholz fails to grasp. According to Fernholz, "the executive branch has the most control over foreign policy, and only when its occupant is against the war will we see real progress. Until then, young people must work on defining what type of foreign policy our generation should support." With such an approach, Fernholz has completely relinquished the power of human beings--student and non-student activists alike--to the executive branch of the federal government. By doing so, he becomes a prime example of the critique Martin makes of student activists. According to Martin, the problem is not that student activists do not care; the problem is that they do not see themselves as creators and controllers of their own lives and the world around them. Martin sites a study conducted on college students that found that the average college student today was 80 percent more likely to feel that his/her life was controlled by outside forces than students in the early 60s.

In the world that Martin would like to see, young people would not sit around and wait for power in the executive branch to change hands but would instead hold an event on the Washington lawn to put pressure on those who currently have power to change what they do with that power. As Fernholz points out, those in power are not always the enemy. However, when those who have power use it in a way that the people deem inappropriate, it is the duty of the people in a democratic state to hold those in power accountable. If those in power do not respond, the people have a duty to go outside the avenues of change provided by people in power and develop new ways to create social change. This basic concept that activists in the late 60s understood, today's young student largely fail to grasp.

One reason young activists fail to grasp this lesson stems from the cold war. Marx, the original theorist of people's power at the point of production, was made virtually off limits in US colleges during the cold war. Because of this, generations of activists and intellectuals have been denied a crucial lesson in creating social change. Another reason stems from the way in which college activism is designed to keep students from getting too radical. In conversations with student activists, I regularly ask the question, "Why does the university require you to get the posters you want hung approved?" Students almost always respond, "Because they want to make sure no one gets their feelings hurt." Students are right, that is part of the reason the University wants to approve all signs.

However, a second reason is that colleges want to make sure that students do not get too radical and recreate the late 60s. To accomplish this, they monitor everything student groups do. When student groups get too radical or begin to question university policies, they typically lose university support. Because students want to get their message out, they create flyers that will be approved by the university. Unfortunately, this is too big of a compromise because all the time students spend getting flyers approved could be spent organizing or studying. By continuing with university approved activism students are giving up a great deal of power and giving the university far too much. This must be seen as both a diversion and a way to absorb radicalism.

Because they need students' money, colleges cannot afford to throw all the activists out. Accordingly, students must begin to see that they are in a position to affect change. Before seeing this however, they must begin to understand that human beings create, sustain, and have the capacity to change institutions. When we are complicit with institutions, we are actively working to sustain them. When we agitate, we are actively involved in changing them. Students have power; they just have to learn how to use it.

do you already know what you are getting?

truth reflects reality
but what is reality
& what is then true?
knowledge implies truth
& who can claim to possess knowledge that

is purely true to reflect the real?
- Alex B. Hill (date written unknown)

Whether we all know it or not we are enslaved by a great system, a system that propagates discrimination based on race, division rooted in the ideas of economic class, military control bent on power, and a political will lacking the necessary passion to stand up for what can easily be perceived as right (as opposed to wrong). Right: equal rights for all people of the world, equal opportunity, fair wage and living standards, a smile from a stranger, an atypical helping hand when it may seem uncouth, truth spoken from the mouth of a fellow on the misdeeds of a few who would wield a vast power in the name of many, not denying people their basic needs. Wrong is spewed from the system in many ways, most are unrecognized and more unknown to the general populace than one might think.

I just went to the movies tonight and what was most striking was not the movie itself, but the previews. I nearly forgot that a movie was to follow. There was a new film on beating the US Treasury's money shredder, one on the fictional assassination of a US presidential double and the preceding systematic cover-up, a film decrying US torture in wartime, the government extending a soldiers' contracts: Stop Loss. The current climate of things is more than ready for a movement away from destruction and into progress. When I say progress I am not talking about reform, there is no place for reform in the current system. There needs to be change, as in complete, no holds barred flip of the system. People need to be the pinnacle of the equation - people in the sense that every man, woman, and child needs to be ensured that the reality they live with is not also the systematic structure that keeps them in poverty, at war, without proper clothing, or without the ability to pursue a higher dream. Here in the USA, we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - why must it only be a pursuit and not a right?

Before this day at the movies, I had another similar excursion. An exciting day to go see the new political thriller just in theaters. Lions for Lambs was one of the best political thriller for our time, now. During World War I, the Prussian troops used to call the English grunt workers, on the frontlines, Lions because of the ferocity with which they worked and fought, these men were Lions for Lambs. The Lambs were the politicians who sat in their plush offices and said to reporters, "we will do whatever it takes to win," as their men die by the thousands, day by day pouring the fiery passions of their hearts into their work. These men were only to be forgotten by the Man, the politician on the pedestal, the system for which they had risked their very lives to preserve - a construct that had no place for them and never will.

This is the overtone of the most recent political thriller to come out of movie making land. Sadly much of the message was lost to the American public before they had even seen the movie. It has become very common that political thrillers are not appealing to the American public. They don't like the harsh realities coming to life on the big screen, they don't like the messages, they don't like being called out in the theater where they came to enjoy a little bang-bang shoot'em up action. And so in the end Americans do not see these movies and political thrillers, which very well may be later called the greatest films of their times, fall in the box offices to popular whim. I recently read a very poor review of Lions for Lambs in which the student author claimed the film relied too much on political generalities and made the message too confusing. I would say that this was the prime example of the audience being lost to the message. As this student was the target and missed the mark completely.

Warning: Possible spoiler of Lions for Lambs

The film opens, in a hypothetical situation mirroring the present circumstances, with a 'liberal' journalist meeting with the new, young, up-and-coming republican political star. They are to spend an hours time getting the 'truth' to the American people. The Republican, played by Tom Cruise, tells of a new strategy in Afghanistan to win because "America needs a win." The typical Republican rhetoric of today played out very well as a representation of the current political situation. As the Republican explains this plan in detail the story cuts to a team of Army Rangers beginning to initiate this new strategy to win in Afghanistan. They tear across the sky in their Chinook helicopter to land and take the high ground in the mountains. Suddenly they are hit by anti-aircraft fire, the gunner is hit and one of the soldiers falls out the back of the helicopter. Another soldier hesitates and then jumps after him. We then cut to a student visiting his political science professor, played by Robert Redford, to talk about how his class involvement and grades have fallen as well as his attendance.

The Republican dishes his empty rhetoric, soldiers fall in a new push in the war on terror, and a student discusses his grades. The professor asks the young man why he has stopped attending his class yet has continued to do so well on his exams. The student hesitates and replies that there are girls, and his frat house obligations, and college social stuff. The professor cries bullshit and asks ominously, "Why have you stopped caring?" when before the student used to spark debates and challenge ideas. The student responds that he is fed up. He is fed up with the shit that is the political system and he can no longer see the point. The professor begins to tell the story of two of his former students who used to give him as much hope as he had now in this fed up young man. They came from a tough area of LA where they grew up fighting just to live another day in the ghettos. Guns, drugs, gangs - when they made it to college on baseball scholarships they did not waste their time and jumped right into the political science course. As a class project they presented on how to solve America's problems.

Their solution made a lot of sense. They noted how good we are with deployment abroad with US troops stationed across the world, but in America there is very little 'deployment.' They proposed that the Junior year of High School not involve the formal classroom setting at all. Juniors would be placed in either a Peace Corps type program, AmeriCorps program, or an ROTC program. They followed up this plan by noting the great and terrible disparities in America in literacy, access to opportunity, and potential in life. Drawing from their tough experiences as young people from the ghettos they saw this as an incredible way to get people involved. I have to admit that when they talked about this program in the film I could not help but think how amazing it would be if this were an actual program. Another student asks them, "You both talk a big game, but how serious are you?" They then place their military enrollment dispatches on the overhead. They are headed for the Army. They figured what good is it to talk and not be involved in something if you want to make change.

Cut back to Afghanistan. The soldier who fell out of the helicopter is unconscious and the other has a broken leg trapped in the snow. These soldiers are the two students that the professor talked so highly. Alone, trapped on the top of an enemy infested mountain the two former students, now soldiers, await their fate as the enemy closes in on their position. At the same time the Army is sending in rescue missions to help them, the Republican is getting the bad news that this new plan is failing, and the student meeting with his professor is wondering what he is supposed to do. Airstrikes to drive back the Taliban fighters fails and the two soldiers are shot dead just as help is on the way, the reporter refuses to write the politically charged article on the Afghanistan plan to boost the Republican party presidential hopeful, and the professor says to his student, "What if I give you a straight B, no plus no minus for the rest of the semester. If you don't show up, don't do your reading, and don't turn anything in. A straight B." The student doesn't know what to say, but time is up and it is another person's turn to have a meeting.

Back at his frat house the student is asked by another frat brother what the meeting was for. He responds that it was a meeting about class and grades. He is then asked, "do you already know what you are getting?" End of movie. The high schoolers behind me couldn't believe it as many who have reviewed this film couldn't. "A terrible end to a terrible movie," said one. "I don't even get it," said another. That is the point! The film is much deeper than the usual hollywood hit. There is more to it than typical partisan political arguments and explosions with soldiers. This is a call for involvement, political action, doing something! We can no longer just sit by and watch things happen and complain about them later. Do we already know what we are getting? More importantly are you fine with that, are you satisfied? The end of the film noted how politicians bank on the apathy of the general public. They count on our ignorance of the situation. Great minds die in unnecessary combat, others get fed-up studying politics, and still others refuse to be manipulated by politics to give them good press - but for some reason that has become their job. All I can ask is "where are we going?"

All this has made me think and this post has been sitting in my draft box for a long while. "Why have I stopped caring?" Why should I care when everything is so arbitrary and falsely constructed in a terribly flawed system! Why should I waste my time and effort "playing the game" when all it does is mislead and fulfill my thirst with the nothingness. A higher education, while it is a great privilege, is wrought with discrepencies and lies. I needed the opportunities and intellectual challenges (outside of class), but in the end it will mean nothing if I do nothing. I hate the system and the system hates me. I will be judged as a failure by the system and doors will be closed. I am already judged as a failure - my grade point, my dislike of the institution, and my perhaps 'radical' and challenging ideas. I know that a degree can be seen as a way to be judged as less of a failure, but what is the point anymore? (Don't worry, I am not a nihilist) I know that in many regards I have been very successful, but those are all discounted (no matter how great) by my performance in school, by my calls against the current system, by my lack of respect for those ensnared by the system. I am called a "naive" white boy 'saving' the African continent. I am called a "naive" radical - speaking that my professors are full of unthought (in the sense that they regurgitate ideas rooted in the terrible foundations of the system). I am called a failure lacking purpose and knowledge of how things work in reality, but it is a false, constructed reality actualized by the few. I have learned so much from my friends, personal quests for understanding, and engagements with student organizations in thoughtful discussions. I am here, at college, because of societal structure and expectations. I am here because this is what I am supposed to be doing.

Back again to Lions for Lambs. Do you already know what you are getting? Do you understand what you are already getting and are you satisfied? Is it enough to be able to say that I at least tried? For me that is not good enough. To be able to say I changed it, I destroyed it, I made it right is good enough. I am told that, "sometimes you have to play the game." In no way, shape, or form will I play this game. I do not care to be recognized in this game. I will not don the jersey of this system to sit on the bench to watch the game from the sidelines. The system counts on our collective apathy, but that can easily be changed. Apathy is what fuels this game. An apathy that leads to a game of destruction, discrimination, and death. I already know what I will get if I continue to follow this system without thinking and acting for myself. I know the planned structural violence that plays out day to day - and I am not satisfied. Are you? What will you do?

----------------
Now playing: J-Live - Satisfied
via FoxyTunes



From the When not in Africa. . . blog.

Previously posted on the Young People For Blog.

Public Intellectuals and the Possibility of Building a Movement

Click to read the comments and original post on the Young People For Blog by: Matt Birkhold | Dec 03, 2007 |

Because there is an undeniable crisis in the US felt by the majority of residents, the question of how people become active is very important. The masses of US citizens are not convinced that the crisis facing the US is indicative of something profoundly wrong with the US system itself, only that there is something wrong with the people who are currently in charge of it. Given this reality, it makes little sense for people to take revolutionary action because the masses of people will respond to revolutionaries as if they are crazy because they do not see the need for revolution. In response, a number of prominent intellectuals who believe there is something wrong with the US system have assumed the task of trying to convince the masses of people that there is something wrong with the system itself, not just the people in charge. I will call a certain sector of these people public intellectuals because they have chosen to pursue this path through the use of popular media outlets.

Quite often, the tactic public intellectuals use to convince the masses of Americans that there is something profoundly wrong with the US system itself is articulating the grievances of the most oppressed groups in the country through popular media outlets such as appearances on CNN and various radio and TV talk shows. In an essay defending public intellectuals, Duke University professor of African American Studies, and self proclaimed public intellectual, Mark Anthony Neal has described such work as "the labor of those whose mode of activism is best realized via corporate media (including the publishing houses) and elite universities, and who leverage the resources of those institutions to do the work of social justice." There is no doubt that the best mode of activism for particular intellectuals can be realized through corporate media. However, if we are interested in building a movement for social justice we have to ask how effective these modes of activism can be.

In order to determine how effective the modes of activism described by professor Neal can be four questions must be asked. One, what are the conditions by which public intellectuals are given access to corporate media such as CNN or The Today Show? Two, by focusing on corporate media and elite universities, who are these public intellectuals targeting? Three, what does the target audience of public intellectuals say about who they see as agents of social change? And four, how likely is it that the targeted agent desires social change?

First, last time I watched, CNN was not exactly a hot bed of radical political thought. Because radical means "the root," and CNN only gives the average guest about three minutes of talk time, public intellectuals are prevented from explaining the root causes of the social problems they have been asked to discuss. Additionally, because CNN's revenue comes from advertisers, CNN will not air comments that have the potential to interrupt their flow of revenue. Because honest intellectualism may cost CNN revenue, if public intellectuals want to be invited back, they have to give up a commitment to complete intellectual honesty. Second, because elite universities are overwhelmingly white--and the nonwhite students that do attend tend to come from privileged class backgrounds--public intellectuals overwhelmingly reach people from privileged sectors of the population. Three, if public intellectuals are targeting largely privileged sectors of the population--if we assume they operate in good faith--we must conclude that they believe the greatest potential for social change lies in the agency of folks who have some level of privilege. Fourth, while this answer is certainly more complex than space will permit, the idea that people who are relatively comfortable will be a catalyst for change is pretty far stretched. While there is no question that ivy-league educated blacks will gain from social change or that wealthy white students were extremely active in creating social change when the draft was at the back of their neck, the weight of history clearly shows that significant social change does not come from those who are comfortable with the present organization of society. These answers lead me to pose one further question, if the modes of activism pursued by public intellectuals are not effective, what contribution can they make to the building of a movement for social justice?

In the wake of 1967 Detroit rebellion, theorist/activist/auto worker James Boggs asked the question, "What are the responsibilities of revolutionary leadership?" He concluded that activists had to form a political party that could advance the political development of the masses of angered, militant African-Americans and not just articulate their grievances--an act that is inherently reactionary because it does not propose new alternatives. Importantly, Boggs based his model on that of V.I. Lenin, the leader of the successful 1917 Russian revolution. Because we are not in a revolutionary moment, the development of a revolutionary party is not appropriate. However, the learning opportunity provided by Boggs' discussion of Lenin is the emphasis he placed on Lenin's tireless struggle to build a movement. According to Boggs, "Lenin rarely addressed himself to a mass audience either in writing or speaking, or appeared on the public platform. Instead, he concentrated his extraordinary abilities and energies on the task which he had concluded was decisive to the success of the Russian Revolution: the building of an apparatus of dedicated, disciplined revolutionists to lead the masses in the struggle for power."

Whether we seek revolutionary change or not, its not hard to imagine how great a movement for social justice could become if public intellectuals spent less time in front of a mass audience and more time developing the masses to lead the struggle for the power among the grassroots that social change requires.

How Progressives Can Win in the Long Run

By Iara Peng | September 27, 2006 | from WireTap magazine, a project of AlterNet.

Right-wing groups spend ten times more on youth leadership development than progressives do. If we want to win, we need to start investing in the next generation of leaders.

For nearly 30 years, ultraconservatives have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in young people and built an infrastructure that initiates young people into the radical right movement through campus activism, leadership training and career development. Their investments have paid off. The radical right wing now controls the executive and legislative branches of government, and it's only one seat away from complete dominance of the Supreme Court.
If progressives want to achieve the same sort of political success that the radical right has enjoyed for the past two decades, we're going to have to do more than focus on the next round of elections and pay lip service to engaging young people. We must make a serious, long-term investment in our next generation of progressive leaders. Young people provide a vital infusion of ideas, energy and passion to the progressive movement right now, and their commitment to continued activism and leadership is critical to building a progressive future.

The right wing's investment in young people

For decades, right-wing organizations including the Leadership Institute, Federalist Society, Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation have spearheaded a massive effort to bring young people into their movement. Last year alone, the Right invested $48 million in 11 youth-focused organizations aimed at increasing the number of ideologically friendly campus papers, fostering networks of students on campuses, shifting the way that students self-identify in terms of political ideology, providing skills and strategies training, and promoting right-wing values.

Students are cultivated by the right-wing campaign against college courses that conflict with their agenda. For example, they have accused more than 100 professors of making "anti-American" statements. They attend courses with titles like "How to Stop Liberals in Their Tracks." They have internships, fellowships and jobs waiting for them when they graduate. They learn how to run campaigns and how to run for office.

The return on this investment has been enormous. A powerful network of young ultraconservatives fills state capitols, the halls of Congress, the executive branch and the courts. It is supported by community leaders, skilled organizers, academics and media personalities that help dominate the debate. The leaders in whom the right has invested in are familiar names. In 1970, a man named Karl Rove was head of the National College Republicans. In 1981, Grover Norquist took the reins. And in 1983, it was Ralph Reed.

Progressives need to do more

Young people have been at the forefront of every social and political movement in the history of the world. Through organizations like United Students Against Sweatshops and others, young people have defended the struggles of working people and challenged corporate power. And progressives have made great strides in supporting young progressive leadership development at a national scale over the last few years through the creation of new, progressive leadership development organizations with a nationwide and multi-issue focus, including Young People For, the League of Young Voters and the Center for Progressive Leadership.

At Young People For, we've created a diverse national network of young leaders on campuses around the country. We connect them with each other and provide them with skills and training from national progressive movement leaders. Over the course of their one-year fellowship, they work to implement individually designed Blueprints for Social Justice -- creating important change in the present while at the same time learning valuable lessons they can put to work in the future.

This year alone, fellows at Young People For have played a key role in shutting down Florida's juvenile boot camp system, expanding campus nondiscrimination policies, creating leadership institutes on college campuses for high school students and GLBT leaders, and engaging young people in the political processes by registering them to vote.

Collectively, we're doing great work, but we're not doing enough. Right-wing groups spend more than ten times as much on long-term political leadership development than we do, and financial trends over the past four years show that progressive leadership development organizations are actually, on average, experiencing a decline in revenue. Unlike their conservative counterparts, youth-focused progressive organizations are often funded with a "buying," not "building," mentality, meaning that donors want their contribution to have immediate payoffs, such as election-year voter registration, but are not focusing on investing in the strategic, long-term sustainability of those organizations.

We need more investments through growth capital followed by sustainable, multiyear revenue. Doing so would allow youth-focused progressive organizations to plan for increased growth and build for the future. Eventually, this sustained investment would also help them create reserve funds that would allow them to continue operating at the same scale if funding sources temporarily decline.

Progressives should make a commitment to youth leadership development throughout our nonprofit organizations -- not just youth-led organizations -- that is on the same scale as that of the right wing. It's time to scale up our efforts by demonstrating our commitment to young people through mentoring, professional development, networking and intentional training opportunities to help develop young leadership.

A way for progressives to catch up with the right's infrastructure

In order to address this disparity, we must build widespread knowledge about progressive leadership development needs and opportunities, increase awareness about the gaps between right-wing leadership programs and their progressive counterparts, and support progressive programs over the long term. We need to identify gaps in progressive leadership development programs and start to support programs that fill those gaps. And we need to be clear about the ways in which progressive programs are falling short and develop new initiatives.

Getting to scale is the process of expanding effective programs to achieve greater impact by:

Increasing the numbers of young people served by these programs
Broadening geographic coverage
Building multi-issue and multidimensional programs
Making sure various marginalized communities are reached
Simply put, getting to scale means that our programs will be able to extend services to more people in more places. If our youth-focused work grows to the scale of the work done by the right, we won't have just created more of the same or an increase in quantity. Instead, we'll have created a catalytic effect that leads to fundamental change.

By getting to scale, we can do a better job of reaching beyond urban areas to provide services for marginalized youth at community colleges and on nontraditional campuses. The marginal cost per youth may be expensive, but the gains of reaching more young people in community colleges outweigh the costs, especially when larger social benefits are factored in.

If progressives are to support young people over the long term, we need to make sure our youth-focused work consists of multiple programs that offer complementary types of leadership development to various groups of young people. We must build strong relationships between leadership development organizations to ensure that future leaders have access to various leadership development opportunities throughout their youth.

Together, these organizations will be able to connect young people with opportunities to grow and develop their skills over time, from high school experiential leadership programs to college-based activism and leadership trainings to career development and professional development to mid-level career development, training and networking -- providing the key infrastructure to get our movement to scale.

To learn more about Young People For, or to discuss this story, visit the YP4 blog.

Iara Peng is the director of Young People For.