Oddly, with the presidential candidates from the two dominant and domineering political parties setting new records for low approval, voting for anyone else is met with bafflingly high contempt. My friend, local activist, and Green Party Jill Stein supporter, Shannon Frye, nailed it with this recent facebook post:
Facebook friends, I don’t think I’ve been shy expressing my views on our current election cycle, but I have tried very hard to remain respectful of the decisions you might make when you step into the ballot box. Even if we have sparred, I have still maintained your ability to elect the candidate of your choice. Know that this prerogative is not born of some feigned Victorian politeness, but rather out of desire to see each of you better articulate your realpolitik and claim your stake in the building of a better future for us all.
That being said, I have not, nor will I ever, tolerate the erasure of my person, my experiences or my conviction in order to capitulate to terror, be it tangible or intangible. I will not bend my moral arc in order that you may rest easy. And if you attack my position based on any difference between us under the false assertion that in that difference lies weakness, I will turn your blunt argument into a pointy reckoning.
One such example lies below. A person, who shall henceforth be known as Mr. Charlie, asserted on Jill Stein’s Dank Meme Stash that white privilege was the driver behind her surge in popularity and would be thusly responsible should Drumpf win the presidency. He erroneously held that the Green Party was the enemy, luring POCs, LGBTQ people and the socioeconomically disadvantaged away from their true salvation, Hillary Clinton.
I lost my cool…
“Mr. Charlie, what particular variety of White Savior Complex do you suffer from to make such an ignorant and ill-informed statement?
I am a queer feminist of color and I fully endorse Jill Stein for president precisely because self-righteous idealogues like yourself have absolutely no clue as to the remedy my people desperately need in order to set in motion our uplift.
It boggles my mind how the ONLY political party willing to stand up for racial, gender, socioeconomic and environmental justice has been so maligned by white neoliberalism under the supposed banner of care. How dare you attempt to whitewash the contributions of Green POCs motivated by the grassroots organizing and solution-oriented policies that would bring us into a new era of justice based not on our social capital – of which we have very little – but upon the mettle of our conviction?
You are speaking from a place of fear. Fear of a mango-faced minstrel who shouts deplorable things. Fear of an imagined confrontation with the rage born of over 400 years of oppression reigning. Fear of losing the mask of white indignation that threatens to reveal the fragility of your baseless, store-bought identity. Fear that causes a paralysis of logic and compassion. Fear.
On the social justice platform alone I’d vote Green for life.
The Green Party advocates for the continual challenging of racism, sexism, Homo/bi/transphobia, ableism, ageism, classism and religious persecution. The DNC has at no point in this election cycle or in its history committed itself to fighting inequality on every front in the manner in which the Green Party has fearlessly undertaken. What we, the underrepresented and oft voiceless, have instead received is a piecemeal equality, which is no equality at all. Hillary Clinton and the current incarnation of the DNC has done nothing but pay lip service to creating a level playing field. Clinton’s support for her husband’s 1996 Crime Bill, which contributed to the largest surge in prison populations since the Reagan Administration , has done nothing but ensure the institutionalization and disenfranchisement of scores of POCs – this did us no favor. Clinton’s silence during her tenure as senator amid the growing body of research that proved the inherent bias and disparate impact of stop-and-frisk police tactics on communities of color perfectly ensconced her ambivalence toward the further destruction of the Black and Latinx family. Had she desired more than the occasional Harlem photo op, she would have used her considerable privilege in service to the people she so shamelessly panders to every few years.
On the subject of LGBTQ people, Clinton supported the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as First Lady; as a senator, Clinton could have been the alky she pretends to be and challenged her fellow New Yorkers to expand their definition of marriage, or at least advocate for the inclusion of domestic partnerships in benefit programs for state employees. She didn’t do this. In fact, as recently as April 2013, Clinton went onto CNN with Wolf Blitzer to assert her belief that marriage was an institution between a man and a woman; she didn’t throw her support behind marriage equality until the conclusion of several SCOTUS cases were completely forgone.
As for sexism, which the Clinton campaign loves to cry each time a reasonable critique of her ability to govern justly occurs, there is no better political organization than the Greens to address the systemic oppression of women in the US and beyond. Why would I support a white feminism that capitalizes on the rape of our natural resources, a gross, self-indulgent imposition of Western cultural norms across the globe, and the plundering of our social security net budget in order to fund an imperialist military force that does nothing but wreak havoc in Black and Brown nations in service not to democracy or liberation, but rather in service the corporate master class? Either your feminism is intersectional or its shit: And straight up, if you’re running for office and posturing aggressively against 2 nuclear powers and continuing to take money from and politically ally yourself with nations we know have direct ties to ISIS, then you are not a feminist.
Mr. Charlie, have you any idea what war DOES to women?
1. It kills the civilian population, namely women and children
2. War increases the aggressive violence against women: gang rape, genital mutilation & forced childbirth are all methods used by occupying forces to demoralize a people .
3. War restricts women’s freedom of movement: women, who wind up bearing the burden of being the sole provider for their families and often are hindered by curfews and checkpoints from gaining access to food, medicine, work opportunities and building effective social supports.
4. War forces civilian populations to flee from their homes: this displacement causes refugee surges all over the world, which only seems to respond with more aggression to those already traumatized. For the unwelcome refugee, war continues, as their labor and sexuality are often exploited due to lack of legal protections. Yes, war is a huge contributor to sex trafficking and modern human slavery.
6. War and imperialistic culture prioritizes weaponry over human services:The war machine makes victims all around. Me? I’ve gotten kicked off of Medicaid 4 times this year. But at least our military can afford to bomb the hell out of brown people in 7 nations right now.
As a feminist, I have no country. As a feminist, I want no country. As a feminist, my country is the world and I will do everything in my power to protect her. My question is, how can any woman look at Clinton’s trigger happy approach to foreign policy, her dogged pursuit of profit over the safety and well-being of our planet, and the furtherance of the destabilization of the 3rd world and actually vote to keep it going?
So again I ask, who in this conversation is wielding privilege? Certainly not my brothers and sisters in Green, who care enough about me and my continued existence to vote for the one candidate, the one party, that could help free me from this state of perpetual subjugation. Surely not Dr. Stein, whose mettle has been tested time and again and stills shines brilliantly, compassionately and with the strength of truth on her side. Surely it is not me.
Must be you.
Now take several seats, STFU, and let the grown folks discuss strategy. Your petty semantic games and sanctimonious neoliberal lies will not stop our revolution or my liberation.”
THIS. Enough said.
Every Revolutionary Ends Up Oppressor or Heretic
Every Revolutionary Ends Up Oppressor or Heretic–PEACE QUOTE BUTTON
Every Revolutionary Ends Up Oppressor or Heretic–PEACE QUOTE BUTTON
This cool design is linked to a button, but other great Top Pun products like T-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, caps, key chains, magnets, posters, and sticker sheets can be accessed by scrolling down the product page.
View more Peace Quote Buttons.
For those of you who aspire to being a revolutionary, or wake up one day and learn that you are revolutionary, this Albert Camus quote is for you. Camus presages the results of revolutionary means by pointing out that all revolutionaries either end up as oppressors or heretics. I don’t know about you but I’m a proud member of the national heretics society. In terms of means and ends, I believe that this quote speaks to the issue of violence versus nonviolence. Violent revolutionaries may change or even upgrade the oppressors, but ultimately, they do not defeat oppression, just other oppressors. I believe that violence is inherently oppressive. Now, I am willing to argue what constitutes violence, particularly since I define violence and nonviolence quite broadly. In fact, it may be better to say that I believe that oppression is violence and that nonviolence is liberation. In the end, I see violence is reinforcing the status quo, the powers that be. Thus, violence is not really revolutionary, even though it may bring a lot of outward change. To be truly revolutionary I believe that there must be an inward change that is consistent with any outward change. I think that this is where the heretics come in. Most people will settle for an outward world that advantages themselves, even if it means disadvantaging others. For violent revolutionaries, this typically means disadvantaging one’s defeated foes as some sort of punishment or retributive justice. This is generally accepted as a practical reality, the conventional wisdom and practice of our world. I believe that this type of approach is extremely dangerous since history seems to prove that the turning of the tables simply means new oppressors. However, if one wishes to overthrow conventional wisdom, it is likely necessary to practice unconventional wisdom. If the endgame is equality, an egalitarian society for all of its members, then treating former oppressors punitively becomes a poor foundation for egalitarianism. I think that this gets to the heretical nature of nonviolence. Nonviolence is a way of life, not just a tactic or a means. It means and the ends are inextricably intertwined. More simply put, the means determine the ends. How could it be otherwise? I find it quite ironic that hard-nosed revolutionaries advocating violence somehow think that violence will lead to nonviolence, or perhaps more depressingly, cynically accept that violence is unavoidable. Perhaps Camus recognized the intractable nature of the struggle between violence and nonviolence, thus he laid out the dichotomy of either becoming an oppressor or becoming a heretic. I find myself attracted to the iconoclastic, because it seems the most apt attitude to create revolutionary change. This may be simply tied to the definition of what revolution is: a paradigm shift from the status quo, a change in the nature of the powers that be. You can’t defeat the status quo by the means of the status quo. You can’t defeat the powers that be, by simply wielding authority over others in some better fashion. I think the point is that we should not even be wielding authority over others, and this never quite seems fashionable. As long as people want to lord over one another, then nonviolence will be unfashionable. So, join the unfashionable heretics. Be free to ignore conventional wisdom when it seeks to enslave us, and when it asks us to enslave others. Be free, because being free is the best way to teach others about being free. Be the change. This is a revolutionary.
Check Out These Cool RELATED POSTS:
It is never Enough I want amor! This very short poem, like most of my poems, can be read (at least) two ways. The first line, It is never, can be read as one not getting ...
The future looms Sew large As we seam Sow singularly stranded In the present Weave heir A parent With know designs Beyond Sum won ails And grater still The mine ...
They all believed In peace Except each peace was small enough Too fit in the war machine Hope draining through their tiny wholes Of a grater good Greasing sow Called ...
A philosopher trying to ascertain God's existence Is like a man trying to kiss himself And even less satisfying This short poem is simply a poetic attempt to get at the chasm ...
Not so deep Within the body politic A constipated citizenry Yearns to be free Crying out In a full groan democracy Mourning the dearth of moral fiber Humanity squat An ...
There is a place Beyond smooth A groovy space Well Travailed Up un-till Over Flown The coup As water worn Of more to be A rock fitting To our sole Sow groovy The ...