http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ransby/post_1196_b_777666.html
'Restoring Sanity' Means Reclaiming the Mantle of a Principled Progressive
Struggle With a Diverse Base of People
By Barbara Ransby
Author: 'Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement;
A Radical Democratic Vision
HuffingtonPost.com: November 3, 2010
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert provide much needed comic relief from the
current sad situation we find ourselves in. Given the tens of thousands of
folks who showed up for their "Rally to Restore Sanity," on the Mall this
past weekend, many others share this view. Unfortunately, despite the
therapeutic effects of a good laugh in the face of lunacy, we are not going
to joke and jive our way to a better social and political situation. There
are also two seriously troubling things about the Stewart and Colbert rally.
First of all, why was the Stewart and Colbert rally so white? I looked
through hundreds of photos online, with funny, witty homemade signs, but I
counted only a handful of Black or Brown faces, and by a 'handful,' I mean
about five. That is obscene. Does that mean the fan base is as white as
Glenn Beck's, albeit white people with better commonsense and better
politics? But lily white nonetheless. Or does it mean that "moderation" is
just not the galvanizing slogan that most struggling Black people want to
hear these days.
Unemployment, foreclosures and the so-called war on drugs, and its corollary
mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders, have hit Black and Latino
communities hard and heavy. Growing anti-immigrant policies from Arizona to
Georgia (where colleges just barred undocumented students) have created a
sense of urgency among the Latino population, citizens and residents.
Another explanation is that movement-building requires deliberate, conscious
and methodical outreach to communities and organizations often excluded or
marginalized in the dominant body politic, and who might be understandably
skeptical of a mass gathering convened by two lone white men, however
liberal or progressive they may be. In a predominately Black city like
Washington, with such enormous poverty and homelessness all around, how can
a progressive mobilization be so devoid of a Black presence?
And secondly there is the content of the rallying cry that our two humorous
heroes chose as their banners: embrace sanity, combat fear, and celebrate
moderation and civility. Uhmm, to embrace the tepid and temperate tone of
the day, "I guess I kinda sorta agree with that, mostly." But this is not a
"kinda sorta" moment. I am convinced that standing in the middle of the road
is not going to get us anything, except maybe run over by a big Mac truck
with a Confederate flag on it.
One of the great lines of the old labor movement, and of a popular movement
song, was "which side are you on?" This was echoed in the Civil Rights
protests of the 1950s and 60s. During those historic decades of struggle
against racial tyranny and White Supremacy in the South, young activists
would approach would-be supporters and ask -- "are you with us?" Middle
class people living comfortable lives were forced to "choose sides" and
"take a stand," because lines had been drawn, breaking the routines of
business as usual.
Ultimately, this challenge created new bonds of unity, understanding and
solidarity that transcended generations-old lines of division between
northerners and southerners, Blacks and Whites, middle class and working
class people. All this to say, polarizing a debate is not always a bad
thing. It can help to clarify and illuminate an issue. It can force people
to think carefully and soberly about their own moral compass, and ultimately
side with the position which is the most just and fair.
In our visceral response to craziness and meanness of the far right we have
vilified, or perhaps just devalued the great integrity of embracing
strongly-held convictions. It is not wrong to have strong views or ideals.
The substance and basis for our ideas and ideals is what we should be judged
for. Compassion, equity, inclusion, self-determination, and freedom are not
dirty words. And the ideals of feminism, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, and
socialism have represented some of the most humane and noble human impulses
of the modern era. We don't have to hide or apologize for being a part of
these traditions, even though like all traditions, they were not perfect;
nor do we have to reduce our convictions to the "politics of niceness."
The One Nation march organized largely by union groups and an alliance of
progressive activists on October 2 got a lot less press and fanfare but
brought out a much more diverse crowd, and a crowd whose members had no
confusion about which side they were on. They were on the side of the
oppressed and downtrodden, the left out and left back, the locked up and
locked out. It was a rally about building a movement for social change and
human progress.
So, while at the end of a long week of meetings and picket lines, debates
and defeats, I settle in to watch Colbert and Stewart make fun of my
enemies. It is a way to restore my sanity. It is not the route to building a
movement.
'Restoring Sanity' Means Reclaiming the Mantle of a Principled Progressive
Struggle With a Diverse Base of People
By Barbara Ransby
Author: 'Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement;
A Radical Democratic Vision
HuffingtonPost.com: November 3, 2010
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert provide much needed comic relief from the
current sad situation we find ourselves in. Given the tens of thousands of
folks who showed up for their "Rally to Restore Sanity," on the Mall this
past weekend, many others share this view. Unfortunately, despite the
therapeutic effects of a good laugh in the face of lunacy, we are not going
to joke and jive our way to a better social and political situation. There
are also two seriously troubling things about the Stewart and Colbert rally.
First of all, why was the Stewart and Colbert rally so white? I looked
through hundreds of photos online, with funny, witty homemade signs, but I
counted only a handful of Black or Brown faces, and by a 'handful,' I mean
about five. That is obscene. Does that mean the fan base is as white as
Glenn Beck's, albeit white people with better commonsense and better
politics? But lily white nonetheless. Or does it mean that "moderation" is
just not the galvanizing slogan that most struggling Black people want to
hear these days.
Unemployment, foreclosures and the so-called war on drugs, and its corollary
mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders, have hit Black and Latino
communities hard and heavy. Growing anti-immigrant policies from Arizona to
Georgia (where colleges just barred undocumented students) have created a
sense of urgency among the Latino population, citizens and residents.
Another explanation is that movement-building requires deliberate, conscious
and methodical outreach to communities and organizations often excluded or
marginalized in the dominant body politic, and who might be understandably
skeptical of a mass gathering convened by two lone white men, however
liberal or progressive they may be. In a predominately Black city like
Washington, with such enormous poverty and homelessness all around, how can
a progressive mobilization be so devoid of a Black presence?
And secondly there is the content of the rallying cry that our two humorous
heroes chose as their banners: embrace sanity, combat fear, and celebrate
moderation and civility. Uhmm, to embrace the tepid and temperate tone of
the day, "I guess I kinda sorta agree with that, mostly." But this is not a
"kinda sorta" moment. I am convinced that standing in the middle of the road
is not going to get us anything, except maybe run over by a big Mac truck
with a Confederate flag on it.
One of the great lines of the old labor movement, and of a popular movement
song, was "which side are you on?" This was echoed in the Civil Rights
protests of the 1950s and 60s. During those historic decades of struggle
against racial tyranny and White Supremacy in the South, young activists
would approach would-be supporters and ask -- "are you with us?" Middle
class people living comfortable lives were forced to "choose sides" and
"take a stand," because lines had been drawn, breaking the routines of
business as usual.
Ultimately, this challenge created new bonds of unity, understanding and
solidarity that transcended generations-old lines of division between
northerners and southerners, Blacks and Whites, middle class and working
class people. All this to say, polarizing a debate is not always a bad
thing. It can help to clarify and illuminate an issue. It can force people
to think carefully and soberly about their own moral compass, and ultimately
side with the position which is the most just and fair.
In our visceral response to craziness and meanness of the far right we have
vilified, or perhaps just devalued the great integrity of embracing
strongly-held convictions. It is not wrong to have strong views or ideals.
The substance and basis for our ideas and ideals is what we should be judged
for. Compassion, equity, inclusion, self-determination, and freedom are not
dirty words. And the ideals of feminism, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, and
socialism have represented some of the most humane and noble human impulses
of the modern era. We don't have to hide or apologize for being a part of
these traditions, even though like all traditions, they were not perfect;
nor do we have to reduce our convictions to the "politics of niceness."
The One Nation march organized largely by union groups and an alliance of
progressive activists on October 2 got a lot less press and fanfare but
brought out a much more diverse crowd, and a crowd whose members had no
confusion about which side they were on. They were on the side of the
oppressed and downtrodden, the left out and left back, the locked up and
locked out. It was a rally about building a movement for social change and
human progress.
So, while at the end of a long week of meetings and picket lines, debates
and defeats, I settle in to watch Colbert and Stewart make fun of my
enemies. It is a way to restore my sanity. It is not the route to building a
movement.
***
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FAIR <fair@fair.org>
![]()
From: FAIR <fair@fair.org>
| Action Alert If Olbermann's Donations Are Bad, What About GE's? 11/5/10 MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's standards barring employees from making political contributions. A journalist donating money to a political candidate raises obvious conflict of interest questions; at a minimum, such contributions should be disclosed on air. But if supporting politicians with money is a threat to journalistic independence, what are the standards for Olbermann's bosses at NBC, and at NBC's parent company General Electric? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GE made over $2 million in political contributions in the 2010 election cycle (most coming from the company's political action committee). The top recipient was Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman from Ohio. The company has also spent $32 million on lobbying this year, and contributed over $1 million to the successful "No on 24" campaign against a California ballot initiative aimed at eliminating tax loopholes for major corporations (New York Times, 11/1/10). Comcast, the cable company currently looking to buy NBC, has dramatically increased its political giving, much of it to lawmakers who support the proposed merger (Bloomberg, 10/19/10). And while Fox News parent News Corp's $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association caused a stir, GE had "given $245,000 to the Democratic governors and $205,000 to the Republican governors since last year," reported the Washington Post (8/18/10). Olbermann's donations are in some ways comparable to fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough's $4,200 contribution to Republican candidate Derrick Kitts in 2006 (MSNBC.com, 7/15/07). When that was uncovered, though, NBC dismissed this as a problem, since Scarborough "hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter." Olbermann, of course, is also an opinion journalist--but MSNBC seems to hold him to a different standard. Two years earlier, the Washington Post reported (1/18/04): NBC chief executive Robert Wright has contributed $8,000 since 1999, including $3,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $1,000 to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Andrew Lack, a former NBC News chief, gave $1,000 to Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) while NBC president, and Wright contributed $1,500--after the House committee Tauzin chairs held hearings on the networks' election night failures. NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said the network allows its executives to make contributions and that Wright "does not make any decisions specific to news coverage." Wright, however, was reported in a recent New York magazine piece (10/3/10) to have told then-NBC News chief Neal Shapiro to move to the right of Fox News in response to the September 11 attacks: "We have to be more conservative then they are," the magazine quoted Wright. MSNBC's treatment of Olbermann is also in sharp contrast to Fox News' handling of Sean Hannity, who was revealed by Salon (9/23/10) to have given $5,000 to the campaign of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.), a Tea Party favorite--without Fox expressing any public disapproval. Hannity has allowed Republican candidates to use his Fox program for fundraising (Mediaite, 10/17/10); as Salon noted, Hannity was this year's keynote speaker at the National Republican Congressional Committee's annual fundraising dinner. If the concern is about how giving money to politicians threatens journalistic independence, then companies like NBC should explain why their parent companies can lavish so much money on political candidates or causes with no concern about conflicts of interest or the need to disclose these donations to viewers. The lesson here would seem to be that some of the workers shouldn't make political donations, but the bosses are free to give as much as they'd like. Anyone who watches Olbermann's show knows what his political views are. So what do the far larger contributions from GE tell us? ACTION: Ask NBC and MSNBC to explain their inconsistent standards regarding political donations. CONTACT: MSNBC President Phil Griffin phil.griffin@nbcuni.com NBC News President Steve Capus steve.capus@nbcuni.com Phone: (212) 664-4444 |
|
--
Linda Sutton
Los Angeles, CA
_______________________________________________
PDLA mailing list
PDLA@svpal.org
http://mailman.svpal.org/mailman/listinfo/pdla
No comments:
Post a Comment