Hey all,
Just wanted to let you know that I went to the CIP BOR meeting today (Children of Incarcerated Partents/Bill of Rights). It will be a couple of months (maybe around September) when we will be able to bring youth to the table about this. I already made a phone call to Josh Lang, organizer for HAH (Homeless against Homelessness). Now I'm off to e-mail Amalia! Thanks, Farheen.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Rose Brewer on Race & Wealth
As a reminder, "Converation on Race and Wealth with Professor Rose Brewer"will be held Wednesday, July 25 at 6:30 at the Hallie Q. Brown - MLK Center,270 Kent Street, St. Paul.
This event is free and open to the public. However, RSVP is required to attend. Please contact Unny Nambudiripad atu nny@metrostability.org or 612-332-4471 to RSVP.
Come and listen to Professor Brewer address the intersection of race andwealth and how public policies create and maintain the racial wealth divide.
This event is free and open to the public. However, RSVP is required to attend. Please contact Unny Nambudiripad atu nny@metrostability.org or 612-332-4471 to RSVP.
Come and listen to Professor Brewer address the intersection of race andwealth and how public policies create and maintain the racial wealth divide.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Minutes from 7.21.07 mtg.
Twin Cities Post-USSF Meeting Minutes
Saturday, July 21, 2007 (3:30-6:30 pm, Plymouth Congregational Church)
Present: Susan Raffo, Lena Jones, Josie Winship, Emmett Ramstad, Shannon Gibney, Farheen Hakeem, Lisa Albrecht, Charlotte Albrecht, Jenifer Fennell, Rose Brewer, Sara Olson, Rebecca Trotzky Sirr, Ryan Li Dahlstrom, Harry Greenberg, Patrick Leet, Eleanor Savage, Mary Anne Quiroz, Sergio Quiroz, Liz Arnold, Fernando, Laura Wilson, Becca Reilly
AGENDA
· We started with a short discussion of the agenda and how it was created (by Lena, Susan and Jennifer). There was a focus on building relationships, which came from the last meeting at powderhorn park, but also from the sense that we cannot build a movement in the Twin Cities without first building relationships with each other.
· There was concern that creating a Twin Cities movement map (which was on the agenda) would be premature at this meeting (at this point there were only a handful of people in the room). There was some general agreement with this statement and also some explanation that the map was meant to be something that we built upon at each gathering. The map is also meant to help us identify who is in the room and who is not in the room but should be.
· Susan, Lena, and Jennifer offered up the agenda to the room – that it was not something we needed to follow, but only some suggestions for where to start.
· At this point we decided to go around the room and introduce ourselves.
INTRODUCTIONS
· Everyone introduced themselves and briefly talked about what brought them to the meeting today. More and more people entered the meeting as time went on, so introductions were interspersed throughout the meeting.
DISCUSSION
· The main discussion of the meeting centered on a question that Shannon put out to the group. Upon noting that there have been numerous “movement building moments” to occur previously in the Twin Cities, that have had great potential and energy but go nowhere, Shannon asked, why do these movement building moments dissolve?
· Farheen noted that from experience in Chicago, many people want to be martyrs. Any challenge to their way of doings things or difference in opinion is seen as a sort of “suffering” that encounter in the movement; people get very defensive and it becomes about their egos.
Histories of race, power, and struggle in the twin cities
· Lisa spoke of the difficulty working across racial and class lines in the Twin Cities. There is little trust from communities of color towards white folks because of the dominance of white people in organizing and the tendency of whites to “screw it up”. In the south, there is a history of leaders of color; Lisa says that when white folks screw up there, they are held accountable and then people move on proceed with organizing. Here the mess that white folks make halts the work that was being done.
· Farheen spoke to the experience of often being one of few people of color in the room at meetings and being constantly discredited after speaking up; Farheen knows to expect this kind of exploitation.
· Shannon said that the most negative experiences in organizing here have come from white women. The history here is that white men get the cushy jobs and white women get the non-profit jobs and there is a certain amount of power that comes with that. Shannon called for white people to learn how to be allies to people of color, rather than saying “we’ll support you as long as you do what we say”.
· Rose called for us to learn the histories of struggle here and referenced the Minnesota timeline that was handed out. The small numbers of people of color matter in this history, not just because it has made it harder for communities of color to organize, but also because individual people of color, particularly African-Americans, have acted as “brokers” for the rest of the community. Rose is very excited by the energy of the south: they have a significant political history and we’re talking about building one, so we have to know where we enter.
Personal struggles as community struggles
· Rebecca thinks that a personal vs. community conflict is one reason why energy dissipates at the end of a campaign or a period of intense struggle, such as being in a relationship or being a young mom that one’s political community won’t support. Rebecca would like to see those individual or personal struggles be seen as community struggles.
Accountability
· Susan has been thinking a lot about accountability, and wants it to move beyond just being called out for saying something inappropriate, but also into every aspect of organizing and support. Susan sees this as three generations of work. The statement that there is no history of organizing here resonates with Susan. Susan talked about growing up in Cleveland during civil rights struggles when organizing happened in every day life by people just walking to their neighbors’ doors. Susan would like to see that kind of organizing happen here but is not sure what it would look like.
· Lisa clarified that there is a history of struggle here in communities of color, particularly in Native American communities. Rose agreed but said that there has not been a history of struggle across communities of color and that’s what we’re speaking about. In the Twin Cities, historically and currently, people work in silos. Rose wants us also to be clear that this separation of communities has been intentional à people are intentionally kept apart to prevent organizing.
Organizing models: long term vs. short term
· Farheen also thinks its important for each of us to be clear about why we are here. Is it for personal benefit? To make us feel better about ourselves? We need to be clear on what we want to accomplish and who will benefit from it.
· Ryan Li suggested that prevalent organizing models do not demand that people think about long-term vision or commitment that includes building relationships and intentional coalitions. Rather, folks come to meetings and its like they are reading off their resumes.
· Shannon thought this is indicative of a product versus process conflict. Dominant models of organizing focus on short term gain, but we should be more focused on long-term, behind-the-scenes strategy.
Cross-generation work, gatekeeping, and leadership
· Lisa also brought up a generational piece in this conversation. Lisa’s generation is still not honoring the work of young people and some youth are not paying attention to earlier experiences: there is not enough cross-generation work. On that note, Shannon felt like some people (not just older folks) are not stepping down from the work to let others take leadership. Shannon sees this as more of a spiritual question, rather than one of age or generation and Rose said it is also a power thing.
· Farheen said that this is a problem of gatekeeping. Farheen has even noticed being crafted by others as a gatekeeper for Muslim women, but notes that we need legacy building so that when we are gone there are 15 others coming after each of us, knowing our individual legacies but also their own capacities for leadership.
· There was some clarification needed at this point on how we were talking about older organizers: Lisa asserted that she will be organizing until death but wants to do that along side of younger people; Shannon agreed but clarified that we will all die someday and that spiritual and physical fact should be integrated into our strategies.
· Shannon felt that younger generations have a bit of privilege of not having to embrace identity politics growing up. Shannon knows great organizers of color who are not organizing around identity but rather a shared political vision. Farheen noted that there are many younger activists whose organizing is doing solidarity work on multiple issues rather than on a single struggle.
· Sara thinks that the flip side of tokenization in one sense is that there is hesitation to invite new people in. Especially for young people, its like you have to have a resume to be welcomed into the meeting.
· Susan kept hearing at the USSF about the erosion of non-profits, but that is not necessarily the case in the Twin Cities. Susan is sympathetic in the sense that people want to hold on to their jobs, but there is a fierce protection of institutions here.
· Emmett noted the frequent use of the word “community” in our conversation and asked for people to clarify more specifically what they mean when the word is used.
Republican National Convention (RNC), Midwest Social Forum
· Rebecca thinks we often operate on the notion of a scarcity of resources and that this leads to people hording power. Rebecca is thinking of the Republican National Convention that will be here in a year and thinks it is a unique opportunity for us to reframe is the work we do because the spotlight will be on the Twin Cities.
· Lisa noted that at the Midwest meeting at the USSF, there was talk of doing something in the Midwest region by 2009 (because the next USSF is set for 2010). There is an opportunity for the Twin Cities to take leadership in organizing that if we want that, knowing that the last Midwest Social Forum was not organized at a grassroots level.
· Shannon feels that both 2008 (when the RNC happens) and 2009 are very close, considering the lessons from the Northwest social forum report. We do not have the infrastructure here and if we try make something happen by then, it will likely replicate the white liberal dominance of the last Midwest social forum. Rose said that there have been efforts to change this, but that you need different/more people in the room in order to do that. Shannon thinks there are enough conferences and activities planned as it is and is not interested in putting energy into another conference or large gathering because it will not address the problems we’re talking about.
· Laura gets frustrated when we start talking about planning events. Laura wants to see targeted action and strategy at those who have power. Susan experiences the opposite, where there are actions for action’s sake with no follow-up. Susan does not yet know what we’re doing but wants to support the process and will stay with it as long as we keep pushing toward something that is different than what has happened in the past.
· Shannon said that we still need to have people at the table who aren’t here. We are talking about people who are not here to talk for themselves.
· Farheen attended the first RNC meeting and saw that it was the “usual suspects” and largely white, so Farheen decided not to give energy to that. Instead, Farheen started having “POC versus RNC” meetings to organize people of color and figure out ways of resisting that did not bring people in such close contact with the police state that will be present. Farheen would like to see a “decentralization forum” at the same time to capitalize on the thousands of people who will be here at that time. Rebecca has been interested in that idea too and thinks that other people are and that this would also be a good time for cross-generational dialogue.
· Shannon, however, felt that this is still a reaction to something and not creating a vision of our own. If another world is possible, then what does it look like? Shannon noted again that the RNC is too soon and would like to see something more intentional happen.
· Susan suggested that we not think of any of these events as the “it” but as opportunities that we can use to have conversations on building a multi-issue movement with connections to working towards something bigger.
· Patrick spoke of a model to use the RNC and DNC in Denver as a way to invite people and organizations around the country to come and do their own workshops on particular issues. From those workshops at both sites, a model of issues to organize around could be drafted.
· Lisa’s is not interested in organizing around the RNC or the DNC but in how we build a collective vision. At this table we don’t even know what our visions are. Lisa is not sure where to go next without a collective vision and also noted that relationships are built by doing this work together. Shannon is thinking about the people in her life that she trusts who have more privilege. They have consistently come out in support of Shannon and that is how this trust was built. We keep trying to plan more events but we’re still not listening to the people who are most effected by these problems.
· Laura thinks that we should keep in mind the fact that people are organizing every day and this still be going on during all these other events.
Collective vision, next steps
· Rose said that one big lesson from the US social forum is that the core of organizing must be made up of those who are most affected and we haven’t yet done this work here in the Twin Cities. Organizations that are led by people of color showed up en masse at the social forum because hard work was done to make that happen, so we won’t get the results without the work.
· Farheen thinks that those of us in the room who have connections to the people who need to be here but aren’t should reach out to them. Farheen is specifically thinking about those who are homeless. Rose echoed this statement and thinks we should connected with those who are organizing.
· Lena thinks that we are developing a vision, that it has just been articulated: that those who are the most affected by these issues should be at the core of leadership and organizing. Lena wants to think practically, that after the meeting she’ll be having conversations with people to get them here and needs to think about what people will get from getting involved. Part of what people get is more support for the work that they’re already doing.
· Ryan Li thinks the conversations we have should be about building power and leadership in the Twin Cities from the ground up, about shifting the power. On that note, Susan mentioned an organizing experience from living in England, where the leadership circle of the group was made up 75% people who were directly effected and 25% people who had more privilege. As an unexpected but natural result, those who were not in the leadership circle who were doing support work started thinking and educating each other about their privilege. With that said, some of us at the table will need to step back and not be in the core. Rose also commented that all of us, no matter our privilege or position, need and are lacking political education.
· Laura felt that the conversations we have with people who are organizing are not necessarily about bringing people into this space, but about learning more about what is already being done and what is needed. Sara stressed that we should think about the styles of our meeting and communication to appeal to youth. Shannon added that there is not one way to organize, that different people have different things to contribute. Eleanor wants this to be a space to make visible the organizing that is being done and to figure out ways to support that organizing. Eleanor mentioned the organization Alternate Roots that seemed have a beginning process that was similar to our. Shannon will put information about Alternate Roots on the blog.
· Rose would like to see an assessment of how these relationships we’re talking about are brought to fruition. Rose suggested that we identify those organizations we want to lift up that people in the room have connections to. On that note, and with 30 minutes left, the meeting shifted to this task.
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVUDUAL CONTACTS
The people below agreed to contact the individuals or organizations next to their names and start a conversation by August 15. Those conversations would not be to tell folks that we are starting/doing something in particular, but rather that we want to know what they are engaged in and what their needs as organizers/ations are. The message is that we want to build a base in the Twin Cities toward movement building that looks something like what we saw at the Social Forum. Shannon agreed to post the reportbacks on the blog and send out bi-weekly email reminders of this information.
Lisa: Indigenous People’s Task Force, Jermain Tony of Organizing Apprenticeship Project (OAP), BIHA in Action (Alice Lynch), Ricardo
Lena: Restorative Justice, Gloria who started group for those with incarcerated family members, Kayla Yang, Common Roots
Liz: Women Against Military Madness (WAMM)
Ryan Li: Women’s Prison Book Project, Shades of Yellow, Alliance for Metropolitan Stability, OAP
Sergio & Mary Anne: ISAIAH, Immigrant Freedom Network, Resource Center of the Americas, Aztec dance troupe
Shannon: EJAM, Somali Action Alliance, MICAH, Ananya Dance Theater
Rose: Alondra & Silvia of IFN, Cheryl Morgan Spencer
Farheen: Homeless Against Homelessness, Children of Incarcerated Parents, Welfare Rights Committee, Amalia of Main Street Project
Laura: Move Leadership Organization
Patrick: MIRAC
Susan: Two Spirit Media Project, Breaking Free, Ricardo
Eleanor: HOTB, Intermedia Arts, Ananya Dance Theater
Ernesto: Centro Campesino
Liz agreed to do a phone tree.
Eleanor will look into getting Intermedia Arts for our next meeting, after August 22.
Laura suggested we commit to having some individual conversations with a couple of other people in the room to get to know each other and our visions for movement building.
FEEDBACK ON THE MEETING
· A number of people were quiet during the meeting, so those who talk a lot should be aware of that and make space for others to talk.
· We still want to hear more about people’s individual experiences at the US Social Forum.
· Thanks to those who got the space, got the word out to people about the meeting, etc.
· Next time we should have some time to break into small groups.Next time we should make sure and set ground rules at the beginning (this was in the agenda, but since it was such a small group when the meeting started, we didn’t stick to the original plan).
Saturday, July 21, 2007 (3:30-6:30 pm, Plymouth Congregational Church)
Present: Susan Raffo, Lena Jones, Josie Winship, Emmett Ramstad, Shannon Gibney, Farheen Hakeem, Lisa Albrecht, Charlotte Albrecht, Jenifer Fennell, Rose Brewer, Sara Olson, Rebecca Trotzky Sirr, Ryan Li Dahlstrom, Harry Greenberg, Patrick Leet, Eleanor Savage, Mary Anne Quiroz, Sergio Quiroz, Liz Arnold, Fernando, Laura Wilson, Becca Reilly
AGENDA
· We started with a short discussion of the agenda and how it was created (by Lena, Susan and Jennifer). There was a focus on building relationships, which came from the last meeting at powderhorn park, but also from the sense that we cannot build a movement in the Twin Cities without first building relationships with each other.
· There was concern that creating a Twin Cities movement map (which was on the agenda) would be premature at this meeting (at this point there were only a handful of people in the room). There was some general agreement with this statement and also some explanation that the map was meant to be something that we built upon at each gathering. The map is also meant to help us identify who is in the room and who is not in the room but should be.
· Susan, Lena, and Jennifer offered up the agenda to the room – that it was not something we needed to follow, but only some suggestions for where to start.
· At this point we decided to go around the room and introduce ourselves.
INTRODUCTIONS
· Everyone introduced themselves and briefly talked about what brought them to the meeting today. More and more people entered the meeting as time went on, so introductions were interspersed throughout the meeting.
DISCUSSION
· The main discussion of the meeting centered on a question that Shannon put out to the group. Upon noting that there have been numerous “movement building moments” to occur previously in the Twin Cities, that have had great potential and energy but go nowhere, Shannon asked, why do these movement building moments dissolve?
· Farheen noted that from experience in Chicago, many people want to be martyrs. Any challenge to their way of doings things or difference in opinion is seen as a sort of “suffering” that encounter in the movement; people get very defensive and it becomes about their egos.
Histories of race, power, and struggle in the twin cities
· Lisa spoke of the difficulty working across racial and class lines in the Twin Cities. There is little trust from communities of color towards white folks because of the dominance of white people in organizing and the tendency of whites to “screw it up”. In the south, there is a history of leaders of color; Lisa says that when white folks screw up there, they are held accountable and then people move on proceed with organizing. Here the mess that white folks make halts the work that was being done.
· Farheen spoke to the experience of often being one of few people of color in the room at meetings and being constantly discredited after speaking up; Farheen knows to expect this kind of exploitation.
· Shannon said that the most negative experiences in organizing here have come from white women. The history here is that white men get the cushy jobs and white women get the non-profit jobs and there is a certain amount of power that comes with that. Shannon called for white people to learn how to be allies to people of color, rather than saying “we’ll support you as long as you do what we say”.
· Rose called for us to learn the histories of struggle here and referenced the Minnesota timeline that was handed out. The small numbers of people of color matter in this history, not just because it has made it harder for communities of color to organize, but also because individual people of color, particularly African-Americans, have acted as “brokers” for the rest of the community. Rose is very excited by the energy of the south: they have a significant political history and we’re talking about building one, so we have to know where we enter.
Personal struggles as community struggles
· Rebecca thinks that a personal vs. community conflict is one reason why energy dissipates at the end of a campaign or a period of intense struggle, such as being in a relationship or being a young mom that one’s political community won’t support. Rebecca would like to see those individual or personal struggles be seen as community struggles.
Accountability
· Susan has been thinking a lot about accountability, and wants it to move beyond just being called out for saying something inappropriate, but also into every aspect of organizing and support. Susan sees this as three generations of work. The statement that there is no history of organizing here resonates with Susan. Susan talked about growing up in Cleveland during civil rights struggles when organizing happened in every day life by people just walking to their neighbors’ doors. Susan would like to see that kind of organizing happen here but is not sure what it would look like.
· Lisa clarified that there is a history of struggle here in communities of color, particularly in Native American communities. Rose agreed but said that there has not been a history of struggle across communities of color and that’s what we’re speaking about. In the Twin Cities, historically and currently, people work in silos. Rose wants us also to be clear that this separation of communities has been intentional à people are intentionally kept apart to prevent organizing.
Organizing models: long term vs. short term
· Farheen also thinks its important for each of us to be clear about why we are here. Is it for personal benefit? To make us feel better about ourselves? We need to be clear on what we want to accomplish and who will benefit from it.
· Ryan Li suggested that prevalent organizing models do not demand that people think about long-term vision or commitment that includes building relationships and intentional coalitions. Rather, folks come to meetings and its like they are reading off their resumes.
· Shannon thought this is indicative of a product versus process conflict. Dominant models of organizing focus on short term gain, but we should be more focused on long-term, behind-the-scenes strategy.
Cross-generation work, gatekeeping, and leadership
· Lisa also brought up a generational piece in this conversation. Lisa’s generation is still not honoring the work of young people and some youth are not paying attention to earlier experiences: there is not enough cross-generation work. On that note, Shannon felt like some people (not just older folks) are not stepping down from the work to let others take leadership. Shannon sees this as more of a spiritual question, rather than one of age or generation and Rose said it is also a power thing.
· Farheen said that this is a problem of gatekeeping. Farheen has even noticed being crafted by others as a gatekeeper for Muslim women, but notes that we need legacy building so that when we are gone there are 15 others coming after each of us, knowing our individual legacies but also their own capacities for leadership.
· There was some clarification needed at this point on how we were talking about older organizers: Lisa asserted that she will be organizing until death but wants to do that along side of younger people; Shannon agreed but clarified that we will all die someday and that spiritual and physical fact should be integrated into our strategies.
· Shannon felt that younger generations have a bit of privilege of not having to embrace identity politics growing up. Shannon knows great organizers of color who are not organizing around identity but rather a shared political vision. Farheen noted that there are many younger activists whose organizing is doing solidarity work on multiple issues rather than on a single struggle.
· Sara thinks that the flip side of tokenization in one sense is that there is hesitation to invite new people in. Especially for young people, its like you have to have a resume to be welcomed into the meeting.
· Susan kept hearing at the USSF about the erosion of non-profits, but that is not necessarily the case in the Twin Cities. Susan is sympathetic in the sense that people want to hold on to their jobs, but there is a fierce protection of institutions here.
· Emmett noted the frequent use of the word “community” in our conversation and asked for people to clarify more specifically what they mean when the word is used.
Republican National Convention (RNC), Midwest Social Forum
· Rebecca thinks we often operate on the notion of a scarcity of resources and that this leads to people hording power. Rebecca is thinking of the Republican National Convention that will be here in a year and thinks it is a unique opportunity for us to reframe is the work we do because the spotlight will be on the Twin Cities.
· Lisa noted that at the Midwest meeting at the USSF, there was talk of doing something in the Midwest region by 2009 (because the next USSF is set for 2010). There is an opportunity for the Twin Cities to take leadership in organizing that if we want that, knowing that the last Midwest Social Forum was not organized at a grassroots level.
· Shannon feels that both 2008 (when the RNC happens) and 2009 are very close, considering the lessons from the Northwest social forum report. We do not have the infrastructure here and if we try make something happen by then, it will likely replicate the white liberal dominance of the last Midwest social forum. Rose said that there have been efforts to change this, but that you need different/more people in the room in order to do that. Shannon thinks there are enough conferences and activities planned as it is and is not interested in putting energy into another conference or large gathering because it will not address the problems we’re talking about.
· Laura gets frustrated when we start talking about planning events. Laura wants to see targeted action and strategy at those who have power. Susan experiences the opposite, where there are actions for action’s sake with no follow-up. Susan does not yet know what we’re doing but wants to support the process and will stay with it as long as we keep pushing toward something that is different than what has happened in the past.
· Shannon said that we still need to have people at the table who aren’t here. We are talking about people who are not here to talk for themselves.
· Farheen attended the first RNC meeting and saw that it was the “usual suspects” and largely white, so Farheen decided not to give energy to that. Instead, Farheen started having “POC versus RNC” meetings to organize people of color and figure out ways of resisting that did not bring people in such close contact with the police state that will be present. Farheen would like to see a “decentralization forum” at the same time to capitalize on the thousands of people who will be here at that time. Rebecca has been interested in that idea too and thinks that other people are and that this would also be a good time for cross-generational dialogue.
· Shannon, however, felt that this is still a reaction to something and not creating a vision of our own. If another world is possible, then what does it look like? Shannon noted again that the RNC is too soon and would like to see something more intentional happen.
· Susan suggested that we not think of any of these events as the “it” but as opportunities that we can use to have conversations on building a multi-issue movement with connections to working towards something bigger.
· Patrick spoke of a model to use the RNC and DNC in Denver as a way to invite people and organizations around the country to come and do their own workshops on particular issues. From those workshops at both sites, a model of issues to organize around could be drafted.
· Lisa’s is not interested in organizing around the RNC or the DNC but in how we build a collective vision. At this table we don’t even know what our visions are. Lisa is not sure where to go next without a collective vision and also noted that relationships are built by doing this work together. Shannon is thinking about the people in her life that she trusts who have more privilege. They have consistently come out in support of Shannon and that is how this trust was built. We keep trying to plan more events but we’re still not listening to the people who are most effected by these problems.
· Laura thinks that we should keep in mind the fact that people are organizing every day and this still be going on during all these other events.
Collective vision, next steps
· Rose said that one big lesson from the US social forum is that the core of organizing must be made up of those who are most affected and we haven’t yet done this work here in the Twin Cities. Organizations that are led by people of color showed up en masse at the social forum because hard work was done to make that happen, so we won’t get the results without the work.
· Farheen thinks that those of us in the room who have connections to the people who need to be here but aren’t should reach out to them. Farheen is specifically thinking about those who are homeless. Rose echoed this statement and thinks we should connected with those who are organizing.
· Lena thinks that we are developing a vision, that it has just been articulated: that those who are the most affected by these issues should be at the core of leadership and organizing. Lena wants to think practically, that after the meeting she’ll be having conversations with people to get them here and needs to think about what people will get from getting involved. Part of what people get is more support for the work that they’re already doing.
· Ryan Li thinks the conversations we have should be about building power and leadership in the Twin Cities from the ground up, about shifting the power. On that note, Susan mentioned an organizing experience from living in England, where the leadership circle of the group was made up 75% people who were directly effected and 25% people who had more privilege. As an unexpected but natural result, those who were not in the leadership circle who were doing support work started thinking and educating each other about their privilege. With that said, some of us at the table will need to step back and not be in the core. Rose also commented that all of us, no matter our privilege or position, need and are lacking political education.
· Laura felt that the conversations we have with people who are organizing are not necessarily about bringing people into this space, but about learning more about what is already being done and what is needed. Sara stressed that we should think about the styles of our meeting and communication to appeal to youth. Shannon added that there is not one way to organize, that different people have different things to contribute. Eleanor wants this to be a space to make visible the organizing that is being done and to figure out ways to support that organizing. Eleanor mentioned the organization Alternate Roots that seemed have a beginning process that was similar to our. Shannon will put information about Alternate Roots on the blog.
· Rose would like to see an assessment of how these relationships we’re talking about are brought to fruition. Rose suggested that we identify those organizations we want to lift up that people in the room have connections to. On that note, and with 30 minutes left, the meeting shifted to this task.
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVUDUAL CONTACTS
The people below agreed to contact the individuals or organizations next to their names and start a conversation by August 15. Those conversations would not be to tell folks that we are starting/doing something in particular, but rather that we want to know what they are engaged in and what their needs as organizers/ations are. The message is that we want to build a base in the Twin Cities toward movement building that looks something like what we saw at the Social Forum. Shannon agreed to post the reportbacks on the blog and send out bi-weekly email reminders of this information.
Lisa: Indigenous People’s Task Force, Jermain Tony of Organizing Apprenticeship Project (OAP), BIHA in Action (Alice Lynch), Ricardo
Lena: Restorative Justice, Gloria who started group for those with incarcerated family members, Kayla Yang, Common Roots
Liz: Women Against Military Madness (WAMM)
Ryan Li: Women’s Prison Book Project, Shades of Yellow, Alliance for Metropolitan Stability, OAP
Sergio & Mary Anne: ISAIAH, Immigrant Freedom Network, Resource Center of the Americas, Aztec dance troupe
Shannon: EJAM, Somali Action Alliance, MICAH, Ananya Dance Theater
Rose: Alondra & Silvia of IFN, Cheryl Morgan Spencer
Farheen: Homeless Against Homelessness, Children of Incarcerated Parents, Welfare Rights Committee, Amalia of Main Street Project
Laura: Move Leadership Organization
Patrick: MIRAC
Susan: Two Spirit Media Project, Breaking Free, Ricardo
Eleanor: HOTB, Intermedia Arts, Ananya Dance Theater
Ernesto: Centro Campesino
Liz agreed to do a phone tree.
Eleanor will look into getting Intermedia Arts for our next meeting, after August 22.
Laura suggested we commit to having some individual conversations with a couple of other people in the room to get to know each other and our visions for movement building.
FEEDBACK ON THE MEETING
· A number of people were quiet during the meeting, so those who talk a lot should be aware of that and make space for others to talk.
· We still want to hear more about people’s individual experiences at the US Social Forum.
· Thanks to those who got the space, got the word out to people about the meeting, etc.
· Next time we should have some time to break into small groups.Next time we should make sure and set ground rules at the beginning (this was in the agenda, but since it was such a small group when the meeting started, we didn’t stick to the original plan).
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Resources list
Shannon: I don't have any control over layout of the blog. Would you mind creating a space for posting resources? I have a bunch of great articles from the Movement Strategy Center that I would love to make available. I've been looking for and reading lots of nuts and bolts how do we do this kind of stuff for this and for my other gig with Queers for Economic Justice.
It might also be nice to have a links sections so that we can attach to the organizations that we each belong to and whatever else makes sense. Maybe a Twin Cities links, Minnesota links, Other links?
See you in half an hour,
Susan
It might also be nice to have a links sections so that we can attach to the organizations that we each belong to and whatever else makes sense. Maybe a Twin Cities links, Minnesota links, Other links?
See you in half an hour,
Susan
Friday, July 20, 2007
Various Analyses and Critiques of the first USSF
VARIOUS ANALYSES AND CRITIQUES OF THE FIRST US SOCIAL FORUM
JUNE 27-JULY 1, 2007
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/5564/
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/sherman040707p.html
http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200707060849.html
http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/150989/1/
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1075/1/
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1&ItemID=13271
http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/07/09/national-alliance-of-domestic-workers-formed-at-social-forum/
http://savannahnow.com/node/317099/print
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070716&s=berger
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-kohn/reflections-on-the-us-s_b_56779.html
JUNE 27-JULY 1, 2007
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/5564/
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/sherman040707p.html
http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200707060849.html
http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/150989/1/
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1075/1/
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1&ItemID=13271
http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/07/09/national-alliance-of-domestic-workers-formed-at-social-forum/
http://savannahnow.com/node/317099/print
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070716&s=berger
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-kohn/reflections-on-the-us-s_b_56779.html
Another U.S. Is Starting to Happen
http://rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=60722
Another U.S. is starting to happen
The slogan of the USSF was 'Another world is possible, another U.S. is necessary.' It was interpreted both as another U.S. and another 'us,' meaning the left has to reinvent itself.
by Judy Rebick July 9, 2007
After spending five weeks in Bolivia this summer, I was convinced that the new paths out of this destructive, hateful morass we call neo-liberalism would come from those most marginalized by its greed and violence. Little did I imagine that one of the strongest signs of this direction would come from the belly of the beast itself.
Ten thousand people, overwhelmingly poor and working class, the majority people of colour, at least half women, and a massive number of youth gathered in Atlanta, Ga. at the end of June for the U.S. Social Forum (USSF) signaling what could be the birth of the most powerful social movement the U.S. has ever seen.
“Never in my wildest imagination, did I think I would ever see something like this in the United States,” Carlos Torres, a Chilean refugee now living in Canada, told me halfway through the forum. The sentiment was repeated again and again by Latin American visitors who were there as emissaries from the World Social Forum (WSF). It was radical, it was militant, it was feminist, it was anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, it was queer, it was loud and lively and it was brimming with love, kindness and a deep sense of solidarity.
The slogan of the USSF was “Another world is possible, another U.S. is necessary.” It was interpreted both as another U.S. and another “us,” meaning the left has to reinvent itself.
And it was a major step forward for the World Social Forum movement. The idea of a U.S. social forum came from a couple of people who went to the 2001 WSF in Brazil and then brought a few more with them in 2002. They formed a group called Grassroots Global Justice and began the process of organizing a U.S. social forum, firmly in the WSF spirit.
One of them, Fred Azcarate, then with Jobs with Justice, now with the AFL-CIO, explained to the opening plenary that “it took this long because we wanted to do it right by building the necessary relationships among the grassroots organizations and ensuring the right outcomes.”
And the right outcomes were to create the conditions to unite the disparate grassroots people’s movements around the U.S. across race, age, sector and region.
They got the idea from the WSF but they took it beyond where anyone else has managed to go, except perhaps in Mumbai. In Nairobi, poor people demanded a significant place in the WSF planning process and in Atlanta, they had one. The national planning committee represented what they call national and regional “base-building” groups, whose base is mostly poor and working class people. It seemed to this observer that the forum shifted the balance of power on the American left to the poor and oppressed from the middle class. Time will tell what impact this will have.
Every plenary focused on building alliances among the myriad of grassroots movement across the United States. Most emphasis was on a “black-brown” alliance to combat the racism that divides African Americans from their Latino and immigrant brothers and sisters. But there was also a lot of focus on student/labour alliances and environmental issues were completely linked to social justice issues. Support for gays, lesbians and transgendered people who have been major targets of the Bush administration seemed universal.
The forum ended in a People’s Movements Assembly, where various regional and issue caucuses presented their resolutions. Several new national networks were formed and the bonds of solidarity were deeply forged among those who are usually divided. People left with the commitment to organize social forums in their regions, cities and neighbourhoods. Over the course of the week, the social forum became a synonym for creating a movement of movements everywhere.
“People are asking me when Atlanta has ever seen something like this,” Jerome Scott of Project South and veteran Atlanta activist speaking of the opening march. “I’ve been reflecting on that and my answer is Atlanta has never seen anything like this. The Civil Rights movement was mostly African American and last year’s May 1st (immigration rights) demo was mostly Latinos but this march was the most multi-national action I have ever seen. It was beautiful.”
Almost every one of the 900 workshops over four days was filled to the brim with activists who were sharing strategies in everything from food security to community/labour alliances to a new taking back our cities movement against gentrification. The plenary speakers were majority women, people of colour, and young people. There was not a single left-wing star among them. In a culture obsessed with celebrity, the organizing committee decided they didn’t need any, even the good ones.
None of the big NGOs in the United States were on the planning committee. The idea that foundation-funded, majority white, centrist and Washington dominated NGOs and think tanks have hijacked the left was present throughout the forum. These groups were welcome to participate, but not in a leadership capacity.
Another extraordinary feature of the forum was the role of indigenous people who led the opening march and participated on several panels as well as had their own plenary.
Much of the vision came from them. After talking about the melting of the glaciers, Faith Gemmill from the REDOIL (Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Land) in Alaska said, “Our people have a prophesy that there will come a time in the history of humanity when people are in danger of destroying ourselves. When that time comes, a voice will arise from the North to warn us. That time is now. I was sent here to give you part of our burden to speak up now against the greed.”
And Tom Goldtooth who represents the Indigenous Environmental Network on the national planning committee said, “We must talk from the heart and shake hands with one another. A prayer has taken place that this spirit is going to grow. No matter who we are we must demand not reform of a broken system but transformation. We need to organize from the grassroots.”
And many did speak from the heart.
The plenary on Katrina was stunning to me. While I certainly followed the immediate aftermath, I had no idea of the continuing efforts to whitewash New Orleans. Dr. Beverley Wright speaking from the floor said, “Our parents and our grandparents fought to buy a house to pass on to their family and they are trying to take that away from us when they talk about turning the place we lived in East New Orleans into a green space. They’re not talking about turning the place rich white folks live into green space.”
Another community leader said, “Katrina is both a reality and a symbol. If you work in justice, if you work in health care, if your work in housing, you are in Katrina.”
One of the most powerful speeches was from Javier Gallardo from the New Orleans Workers Center. A guest worker from Peru, he explained that when African Americans were displaced, hundreds of workers like him had been brought in from Latin America for Gulf Coast reconstruction and their employers names are on their passports.
Their ability to stay in the U.S. is dependent on the employer. Gallardo said that there is now a practice that when the employer is finished with the workers, he sells them to another employer for $2,000 each. “What is that?,” he asked.
“We call it modern day slavery. They want to divide us but the old slaves and the new slaves can join together and together we can defeat them,” he continued to thunderous applause. The old slaves/new slaves metaphor wove its way through the rest of the forum in the powerful idea of a black-brown alliance, that veteran activists said would transform left-wing politics in the United States and especially in the South where the vast majority of the working class is now black and brown.
Another impressive feature of the forum was the handling of conflict. When the Palestinian contingent objected that they were the only group not permitted to speak for themselves in the anti-war plenary, the organizers read their letter of protest to the next plenary. When the report of the indigenous caucus was stopped at the end of their allotted time by the moderator of the People's Movement Assembly by removing their microphone, they took grave offense and felt silenced.
Within 10 minutes, most of the indigenous people in the room were on the stage with the consent of the organizers. What could have been an explosive divisive moment with a lot of anger and hurt was handled with incredible skill by both permitting the protest and making sure it was interpreted in a way that created unity rather than division. I had the feeling that a new culture of solidarity was being born, one we tried for in the feminist movement but never quite accomplished.
Of course there were weaknesses in the forum. While strongly rooted in the traditions of the civil rights movement by the symbolic location in Atlanta and the presence of veteran civil rights activists, there was less discussion of working class or even feminist history.
Yet the impact of those movements were strongly felt in the powerful female leadership present everywhere and the strong emphasis on workers' issues and organizing. None of the big environmental groups was present. While the issue of the war and U.S. imperialism had pride of place, the mainstream anti-war movement had little presence. The forum organizers bent the stick quite far towards poor, working class, indigenous, queer and people of colour groups and perhaps this was necessary to create the kind of movement really capable of making change in the United States.
In her famous speech at the 2002 World Social Forum in Brazil, Arundhati Roy famously said, “Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them. Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
It wasn’t a quiet day in Atlanta but I could hear her shouting there, “What do we want? Justice. How will we get it? People Power.”
Judy Rebick holds the Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy at Ryerson University in Toronto. She is a founder and former publisher of rabble.ca. Her most recent book is Ten Thousand Roses: The Making of a Feminist Revolution.
Another U.S. is starting to happen
The slogan of the USSF was 'Another world is possible, another U.S. is necessary.' It was interpreted both as another U.S. and another 'us,' meaning the left has to reinvent itself.
by Judy Rebick July 9, 2007
After spending five weeks in Bolivia this summer, I was convinced that the new paths out of this destructive, hateful morass we call neo-liberalism would come from those most marginalized by its greed and violence. Little did I imagine that one of the strongest signs of this direction would come from the belly of the beast itself.
Ten thousand people, overwhelmingly poor and working class, the majority people of colour, at least half women, and a massive number of youth gathered in Atlanta, Ga. at the end of June for the U.S. Social Forum (USSF) signaling what could be the birth of the most powerful social movement the U.S. has ever seen.
“Never in my wildest imagination, did I think I would ever see something like this in the United States,” Carlos Torres, a Chilean refugee now living in Canada, told me halfway through the forum. The sentiment was repeated again and again by Latin American visitors who were there as emissaries from the World Social Forum (WSF). It was radical, it was militant, it was feminist, it was anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, it was queer, it was loud and lively and it was brimming with love, kindness and a deep sense of solidarity.
The slogan of the USSF was “Another world is possible, another U.S. is necessary.” It was interpreted both as another U.S. and another “us,” meaning the left has to reinvent itself.
And it was a major step forward for the World Social Forum movement. The idea of a U.S. social forum came from a couple of people who went to the 2001 WSF in Brazil and then brought a few more with them in 2002. They formed a group called Grassroots Global Justice and began the process of organizing a U.S. social forum, firmly in the WSF spirit.
One of them, Fred Azcarate, then with Jobs with Justice, now with the AFL-CIO, explained to the opening plenary that “it took this long because we wanted to do it right by building the necessary relationships among the grassroots organizations and ensuring the right outcomes.”
And the right outcomes were to create the conditions to unite the disparate grassroots people’s movements around the U.S. across race, age, sector and region.
They got the idea from the WSF but they took it beyond where anyone else has managed to go, except perhaps in Mumbai. In Nairobi, poor people demanded a significant place in the WSF planning process and in Atlanta, they had one. The national planning committee represented what they call national and regional “base-building” groups, whose base is mostly poor and working class people. It seemed to this observer that the forum shifted the balance of power on the American left to the poor and oppressed from the middle class. Time will tell what impact this will have.
Every plenary focused on building alliances among the myriad of grassroots movement across the United States. Most emphasis was on a “black-brown” alliance to combat the racism that divides African Americans from their Latino and immigrant brothers and sisters. But there was also a lot of focus on student/labour alliances and environmental issues were completely linked to social justice issues. Support for gays, lesbians and transgendered people who have been major targets of the Bush administration seemed universal.
The forum ended in a People’s Movements Assembly, where various regional and issue caucuses presented their resolutions. Several new national networks were formed and the bonds of solidarity were deeply forged among those who are usually divided. People left with the commitment to organize social forums in their regions, cities and neighbourhoods. Over the course of the week, the social forum became a synonym for creating a movement of movements everywhere.
“People are asking me when Atlanta has ever seen something like this,” Jerome Scott of Project South and veteran Atlanta activist speaking of the opening march. “I’ve been reflecting on that and my answer is Atlanta has never seen anything like this. The Civil Rights movement was mostly African American and last year’s May 1st (immigration rights) demo was mostly Latinos but this march was the most multi-national action I have ever seen. It was beautiful.”
Almost every one of the 900 workshops over four days was filled to the brim with activists who were sharing strategies in everything from food security to community/labour alliances to a new taking back our cities movement against gentrification. The plenary speakers were majority women, people of colour, and young people. There was not a single left-wing star among them. In a culture obsessed with celebrity, the organizing committee decided they didn’t need any, even the good ones.
None of the big NGOs in the United States were on the planning committee. The idea that foundation-funded, majority white, centrist and Washington dominated NGOs and think tanks have hijacked the left was present throughout the forum. These groups were welcome to participate, but not in a leadership capacity.
Another extraordinary feature of the forum was the role of indigenous people who led the opening march and participated on several panels as well as had their own plenary.
Much of the vision came from them. After talking about the melting of the glaciers, Faith Gemmill from the REDOIL (Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Land) in Alaska said, “Our people have a prophesy that there will come a time in the history of humanity when people are in danger of destroying ourselves. When that time comes, a voice will arise from the North to warn us. That time is now. I was sent here to give you part of our burden to speak up now against the greed.”
And Tom Goldtooth who represents the Indigenous Environmental Network on the national planning committee said, “We must talk from the heart and shake hands with one another. A prayer has taken place that this spirit is going to grow. No matter who we are we must demand not reform of a broken system but transformation. We need to organize from the grassroots.”
And many did speak from the heart.
The plenary on Katrina was stunning to me. While I certainly followed the immediate aftermath, I had no idea of the continuing efforts to whitewash New Orleans. Dr. Beverley Wright speaking from the floor said, “Our parents and our grandparents fought to buy a house to pass on to their family and they are trying to take that away from us when they talk about turning the place we lived in East New Orleans into a green space. They’re not talking about turning the place rich white folks live into green space.”
Another community leader said, “Katrina is both a reality and a symbol. If you work in justice, if you work in health care, if your work in housing, you are in Katrina.”
One of the most powerful speeches was from Javier Gallardo from the New Orleans Workers Center. A guest worker from Peru, he explained that when African Americans were displaced, hundreds of workers like him had been brought in from Latin America for Gulf Coast reconstruction and their employers names are on their passports.
Their ability to stay in the U.S. is dependent on the employer. Gallardo said that there is now a practice that when the employer is finished with the workers, he sells them to another employer for $2,000 each. “What is that?,” he asked.
“We call it modern day slavery. They want to divide us but the old slaves and the new slaves can join together and together we can defeat them,” he continued to thunderous applause. The old slaves/new slaves metaphor wove its way through the rest of the forum in the powerful idea of a black-brown alliance, that veteran activists said would transform left-wing politics in the United States and especially in the South where the vast majority of the working class is now black and brown.
Another impressive feature of the forum was the handling of conflict. When the Palestinian contingent objected that they were the only group not permitted to speak for themselves in the anti-war plenary, the organizers read their letter of protest to the next plenary. When the report of the indigenous caucus was stopped at the end of their allotted time by the moderator of the People's Movement Assembly by removing their microphone, they took grave offense and felt silenced.
Within 10 minutes, most of the indigenous people in the room were on the stage with the consent of the organizers. What could have been an explosive divisive moment with a lot of anger and hurt was handled with incredible skill by both permitting the protest and making sure it was interpreted in a way that created unity rather than division. I had the feeling that a new culture of solidarity was being born, one we tried for in the feminist movement but never quite accomplished.
Of course there were weaknesses in the forum. While strongly rooted in the traditions of the civil rights movement by the symbolic location in Atlanta and the presence of veteran civil rights activists, there was less discussion of working class or even feminist history.
Yet the impact of those movements were strongly felt in the powerful female leadership present everywhere and the strong emphasis on workers' issues and organizing. None of the big environmental groups was present. While the issue of the war and U.S. imperialism had pride of place, the mainstream anti-war movement had little presence. The forum organizers bent the stick quite far towards poor, working class, indigenous, queer and people of colour groups and perhaps this was necessary to create the kind of movement really capable of making change in the United States.
In her famous speech at the 2002 World Social Forum in Brazil, Arundhati Roy famously said, “Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them. Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
It wasn’t a quiet day in Atlanta but I could hear her shouting there, “What do we want? Justice. How will we get it? People Power.”
Judy Rebick holds the Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy at Ryerson University in Toronto. She is a founder and former publisher of rabble.ca. Her most recent book is Ten Thousand Roses: The Making of a Feminist Revolution.
Check-out Women's Working Group's Reproductive Justice Briefing Book
http://www.sistersong.net/documents/RJBriefingBook.pdf
A new, expanded version will be coming out soon.
A new, expanded version will be coming out soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)