Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dear Friends,I must begin by thanking you for making this conversation possible. I believe this dialogue is an important one, and though it concerns matters that excite visceral reaction from all of us, it’s proof of the integrity of the Colorado Green Party that we’re able to talk to each other in spite of this.I regret that my earlier comments on §§2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Longmont Chapter Bylaws were made in haste and were for that reason more emotional than logical. Upon further consideration, I have identified two aspects of these Sections of the Bylaws that I find objectionable and have detailed these concerns in the paragraphs below. In the first, I take issue with the wording of §2.2.1 because, as it is written, this provision makes an unclear statement of its objective and, I believe, makes our Party vulnerable to undue criticism from the wider public. In the second, I have tried to explicate why it is more advantageous for an anti-oppression party to remain guiltless of committing the same logical crimes as historical racists, misogynists, &c. than to merely reject the claims that will ineluctably be made of reverse racism, misandry, &c.In my reading of §2.2.1, the author has made a justifiable and preemptive rejection of claims that the beliefs, aims, and activities of the Longmont Chapter of the Colorado Green Party constitute reverse racism or misandry. The purpose of making this statement of rejection, namely on the grounds that the charges of reverse racism and misandry are “false” and are often employed to “derail social justice movements” is a purpose I can identify with. I am left to wonder, however, at the wisdom of including this language in the Bylaws of the Chapter because, if this provision is meant as a rebuke to political enemies who wrongly conceive Green motives, then it is an impotent provision—the political enemies who level accusations of reverse racism and misandry against the Chapter won’t care one jot for the rejection set down in the Chapter’s Bylaws and they will still use unsavory characterizations to “derail” the Chapter’s arguments and to subvert the Chapter’s ends. What then remains for §2.2.1 to provide? The author’s desire to enshrine explicit rejection of the rhetorical stone so often lazily shied at social justice movements has instead provided enemies of social justice with easy ammunition. How long will it be before someone points out in The Times Call that in order to prove themselves innocent of reverse racism and misandry, the Longmont Chapter of the Colorado Green Party has had to redefine what’s odious about prejudice in terms of capacity to oppress? It seems unnecessary to lash together these two ideas, anti-oppression and explicit rejection of lazy arguments.The second point I wish to make is the more important one: while I deeply admire the Longmont Chapter’s commitment to solidarity with the oppressed, and while I fully support their self-definition as an anti-oppression party, I do not agree with the idea that combat with racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, &c. is most advantageously conducted by limiting the definition of those evils by parameters of institutionalized ability to oppress. Clearly racism against people with white skin is a vastly lesser problem in society than racism against people with brown or black skin. Clearly our efforts as a party and as human beings must be directed to rectification of those most urgent evils. But prejudice against people with white skin is still racism and deserves condemnation Prejudice against men is still as logically inconsistent as prejudice against women and likewise deserves condemnation. If the Longmont Chapter wishes to defeat accusations of racism, or misandry, or prejudice against any privileged segment of society, then all that is required of them is the acceptance of the moral responsibility to not judge, simplistically, whole elements of society. There is no “reverse racism” only racism. There is no acceptable prejudice, only that which deserves our stalwart hatred. If we take care with our views, and express them with the scrupulosity they deserve, they will be self-evidently not “reverse racism” or “misandry”. It is absolutely vital that in battling these monsters we do not become monsters ourselves.I urge the Longmont Chapter, as a friend and ally, to reconsider §§2.2 and 2.2.1, and the latter of these in particular. Being anti-oppression and anti-prejudice are not mutually exclusive. If the Chapter wishes to state that they prioritize resistance to prejudice compounded by institutionalized oppression, I would support wholeheartedly such action. If the Chapter wishes to include in their Bylaws explicit rejection of “the false ideas that are used to derail social justice movements, such as reverse racism and misandry” I would also wholeheartedly support this action. But not on the pretext that “reverse racism and misandry” are false ideas because one group of people suffers oppression in a way that another does not. Rather, let us see these false ideas as what they are, demonstrably incorrect because we, unlike true racists and true sexists, do not condone sweeping judgements of whole peoples.
It is a pleasure to welcome a new chapter to our State Party, and it is gratifying to bear witness to the growth of a movement I believe to be wholly integral to that most elusive of dreams, A Better Future. I believe it will serve us well to count among our allies a chapter in Longmont, Colorado, my hometown. As I'm sure many of you already know, Longmont is manifest proof that it lies within our power to better our society. Fewer than a hundred years ago the Ku Klux Klan marched down Main Street, and Longmont, that quiet wide spot in the road, boasted higher membership in that organization than most cities across the states once part of the Confederacy. That today we consider the incorporation of a group of people who could not be more opposed to such evil cannot be other than a boon to the spirit of this Party, and to the wider fellowship of people struggling to shed the nightmarish inheritance of our History, and to realize that which we know to be possible. But given the choice before me, I must perforce second the opinion already expressed that included in this Chapter's bylaws are clauses that are inimical to our most cherished principles, viz 2.2.1. Further, the Longmont Green Party explicitly rejects the false ideas that are used to derail social justice movements, such as reverse racism and misandry. While prejudice may exist against white people, against men, against cisgender people, against heterosexual people (or any other privileged group), this prejudice is not oppression because there are no institutional power structures designed to disenfranchise these privileged groups."This prejudice". I was startled to read such frank admission of a dangerous conceit from members of a party that has for decades nurtured as its very heart all that is opposed to this. While it mightn't be possible to oppress members of society born into privilege because our society lacks institutions whereby to do so, does that fact render prejudice permissible? Is adopting the tactic of those segments society we count as enemies really in our best interest? This clause, born I think of an entirely justifiable anger, makes us all vulnerable to what ate at the hearts of the men who marched down my hometown's main street a hundred years ago, wearing white cloaks. Moreover, this clause is in direct violation of its parent clause, viz2.2. The Longmont Green Party’s expression of the 7th and 8th Key Values, as well as of the Third Pillar of the Green Party (Social Justice) causes it to declare that we are an anti-oppression party, actively dedicated to the work of challenging white supremacy, cissexism and heteropatriarchy. As such, expressions of sexism, racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and other oppressive behaviors are not in keeping with the values of this party.I'm sure it will be pointed out to me that the operative word in clause 2.2 is "oppression" and that what I object to in clause 2.2.1 is made right in the absence of the power to oppress. I myself do not believe expressions of prejudice are ever permissible, and for that reason I must cast my vote as STAND ASIDEuntil such time as these grievances are addressed either by revision or I can be convinced of my misapprehension.
