Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Nuts & Bolts of Anti-Racist Organizing

So, in the last two sessions, we've been looking at actual organizations that are working on social justice issues from an anti-racist perspective, led by people of color or white people. How are people ACTUALLY doing all this anti-racist work we've been gearing up for? What are the particular pieces that organizations weave into their work? From this I draw both from reading about organizations as well as looking at the organizations where participants in this program have been placed as volunteers.

Leadership Development
For real social change, we need to have the people at the bottom (most oppressed/most impacted, whatever terminology you prefer) leading the movement. Not out of some altruistic , affirmative action type standpoint, but because that is the only way to actually bring true change that will be good for everybody. People who suffer from the heaviest oppression are the ones who are going to know best what needs to change and how. But also because of the oppression they have suffered - which may lead to financial stress, lack of education, trauma from violence, substance abuse, or any other number of obstacles - their capacity to lead the movement may not be fully developed. Thus the need for leadership development - training and guidance on how to organize, how to run meetings, how to develop strategy, how to defend rights. None of us is really born knowing that, but those of with certain types of privilege get taught those things. I am really beginning to see how the knowledge of how to organize is a resource that I have because of privilege and not only do I need to use it, I need to share it with those without that privilege.

So how does one develop leaders?
For some organizations, it's theoretically straightforward: at La Raza's Day Labor Program, they had a 10 session training course for newly elected coordinators - teaching skills on facilitiation, strategy, legislative process, fundraising, etc. They also have a weekly popular education workshop series. Other organizations use more one-on-one mentorship. Or the idea that when assigning roles, such as talking to the media or running an event, you choose a team with one person who has experience and who person who does not.

A big hunk of leadership development is constantly showing how the things that individuals are experiencing are part of larger social phenomenon, as well as pushing people's politics to see how their struggles are connected with other people's struggles. Like how transgendered people's trouble around having ID's that match their name and gender leads to the same issues that undocumented immigrants face.

Another component is having various ways for people to plug in, participate, and lead that makes room for the various circumstances in someone's life. Someone may not be able to make it to scheduled meetings, but perhaps they can make phone calls from home.

Accountability
In the anti-racist organizer world, which I know is a very particular subculture, people talk about accountability a lot, but still it can seem ephemeral. Like what the hell is it? We came up with some good concepts:
  1. Personal Level: Doing what you say you are going to do when you are going to. Creating clear structures can be really helpful in this - having workplans, a supervisor/lead that you regularly check in with, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
  2. Organizationally: Making sure that the people who are impacted by your work have a strong voice in the organization, that you hear from them how the work you are doing impacts them and their communities. Part of this is also doing the work to meet people's needs so that they can participate, which also goes back to leadership development. For instance at the day labor center in Lake Worth, we really wanted there to be some workers at every organizational meeting, and the invitation was put out. When they didn't come, our director often said, well we invited them, that's the best we can do. No, we have to do more. We have to find out what they will need in order to be able to come - which might also entail changing the way we seek out input from them. Maybe it's a simple matter of changing the time, or providing food or childcare, or maybe the meeting structure itself doesn't work.
  3. Politically: Keeping your politics and vision in mind, and making sure that the work you do is staying true to your politics
Sometimes these things may not point in the same direction, so there is a challenge of staying true politically while also meeting the needs, desires, and strategies of the grassroots people or "base." Some challenging examples of this is say that you are an abolitionist group (meaning that you think prisons should be totally abolished and no one should be imprisoned), then there is a cop that kills a young black man. The community is outraged and many sectors want to see that cop convicted and sent to prison. So here you have a community, young black men, who are the main targets of the prison system, who are advocating the prison system as a just way to deal with a terrible situation. Does your organization stay accountable to its abolitionist mission, or accountable to the population most impacted by the prison system? That is a choice that each organization, or each person, must make according to their own judgment. Of course, the long term answer is to constantly be in discussion with those communities about your politics and the vision behind them.

Multi-racial Relationship Building & Alliance
We didn't go too far into this but a couple things include having effective language translation so that people can talk to each other!, and working to find common issues to unite around. One example is that over here in the Bay Area, there is a strong "Brown-Black Unity" in resistance to the attempts to pit African-Americans against new immigrants over competition for jobs - when really both groups are deliberately being locked out of employment opportunities by a system that doesn't want either group to succeed.

Point from the Panel
We had yet another awesome panel that shared with us their experience in different organizations with different strategies and tactics. Some highlights
  • That in the post-civil rights era, the right wing has been successful in delegitimizing race as an issue - meaning that they have convinced people that race is not a factor any more and it doesn't make sense to talk about it.
  • The concept of "dog whistle racism" - where people are calling white supremacists to arms without ever using racial terms. One example is the current "tea party" movement.
  • That meshing domestic anti-racist strategies with global anti-racist strategies are hard because everyone in the US benefits from imperialist capitalism - even black youth who are so targeted by domestic racism, are attached to the material goods, i.e. Nikes, that are produced as in sweatshops of imperialist transnational corporation.
  • Two purposes, among the many, that the visibility of anti-racist white groups serves is to be a reliable partner in the struggle against racism - organizations/people of color knowing that you exist and can call on you when needed; and creating an alternative to right wing politics - people get to see options of how to interpret situations and can choose your side instead of right wing conservatism being the only visible option. This to me was something of a revelation, even though I know I have thought about it in the past, but the idea that just by existing and being visible, you help to provide options that can help shift the culture, that seems easier to me. Not that that's all you do, but that you're mere existence alone does something, helps.
  • We got guidance from Linda Burnham on how to talk to people about structural racism - many people think of racism only as interpersonal, and we know it as structural and institutional as well, and how do we distill the 4 months of learning we've done on this into one conversation? Well, of course, it doesn't come down to one conversation, but what Linda said was that the important thing to do is to listen to people, figure out where their thinking is at, "enter their frame of mind", celebrate what's positive about it, and then MOVE IT FORWARD. Like if someone really believes in multiculturalism - then recognize that yes tolerance and diversity is needed, that their commitment to it is beautiful, and then show how their desire for racial equality requires some steps beyond the limits of what multiculturalism can achieve. Linda also referred us to john a. powell, director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University as someone who has done lots of thinking on structural racism.
We also talked a bunch about the scale of the movement we need to build - that we need to be reaching millions - much more than we can get via dooknocking. We didn't come up with "the answer" to how to do that, but one thing I think is that is where culture comes in. People talk about cultural workers - the poets, musicians, rappers, filmmakers, dancers, etc - and we need to recognize that this is one of the ways to really reach the millions, and their work is truly work and truly valuable. They/we are creating a culture of resistance and liberation that we hope will be more appealing than the current culture of domination. When it's "cool" for youth to be rapping along to Dead Prez's songs about black power or singing along with Riot Folk anthems about fighting global capitalism or reciting Alixa & Naima's words on Colombian struggles - instead of mindless songs about bling or obsessive monogamy or singing commercial jingles - that's when we will have a chance at succeeding on the scale we need to be.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Don't be disempowered by analysis!

The following is taken from my comrade Jonathan in the program, who also has a blog chronicling his time here:

An elder African American mentor of mine back in NC who is a longtime anti-racist activist and has been an important piece of my political development over the years, raised a few concerns with me before i ventured out here. They stuck with me and were on my mind yesterday. He noted the propensity for white anti-racist training to lead to people becoming disempowered and making counterproductive assumptions about their role within multi-racial spaces. He noted that many white people coming in to anti-racism become so terrified of stepping on the toes of people of color, that they receed far into the background, rendering their intelligence and commitment ineffective. This severe self-censorship also implies the problematic belief that folks are color are not able to stand up for them selves when a white person is dominating a space. He was also concerned with difficulty many white anti-racists have in balancing the acknowledgment of their unintentional complicity in white supremacy, with an ability to proudly bring their full humanity into organizing spaces.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Personal Transformation

So as we've moved away from the really painful histories of oppression and towards more practical sides of doing anti-racist liberationist work, it's been easier to step away from the emotional aspects. Today's session really asked us to move deep into ourselves and get in touch with our most personal fears and motivations. So I'm going to get really personal in this blog (though I'm already pushing to intellectualize it and get away from the emotions) - and I ask that if you want to read that, that you do it when you have some emotional space.

Idealized Self-Image
We did a lot of work around "idealized self-image"which is essentially the person we want people to see us as. We looked at it specifically around the theme of being a white anti-racist activist. So I was asked to describe the person I wanted everyone to think I was, and I include it here not only to expose my psyche, but to help describe the idealized self-image:
  • An activist with burning passion
  • A go-to resource for advice on political issues
  • Someone who knows my place/role within multiracial settings/movements
  • Someone who can always take criticism or being called out really constructively and never be hurt or defensive about it
  • Someone who always calls out/critiques others in the most loving, supportive way possible
Our facilitators asked to focus on how demanding our idealized self-images are - requiring us to be awesome all-the-time, perfect, not make mistakes, etc... I know that we all say that no one is perfect, but really, sometimes it's hard to believe that people will really love you (personally or politically or ideally both) through your mistakes. As a side note (or not so side), one big transformation we need to make is creating a culture that really allows mistakes and has protocol for dealing with them loving, constructively, and supportingly. I lately feel like I've been taking a lot of risks and making a lot of mistakes which have hurt people and in turn become really painful for myself.

Fears, Doubts, and Negativity
Then we looked at the fears, doubts, and negativity inside ourselves that the idealized self image sets out to protect. For me a really serious thing is racial inferiority - that as a white person who recognizes the slant of racial supremacy over many centuries - I will never be as valuable as a person of color; that because being white is my "original sin", I am inferior to non-white people, and can only be valuable insomuch as a I contribute to the struggle for racial justice. My work is valuable, not my person. Someone in the group talked about similar feelings, and looked at how ingrained capitalism is into ourselves that we think we are only worth as much as we can produce. Yes, that feeling is really ingrained, and it's hard for me to imagine a living society where people value each other just 'cause. I know I strive for that, I long for that, and I believe a lot of time I love my friends not because of what they do, but because of who they are. But I oftentimes don't believe people will love me that way.

I also worry that I have no real place in the struggle for racial justice, or not a place that will feel good to me - and as much as I want to have something important to contribute, that I am only useful as a shuttle of resources and support to people of color who are the real activists and organizers. This is a distortion of white anti-racist analysis that says that I need to be supporting people of color led organization. One of the Catalyst staff referred to a conversation he had with a black organizer who said that he was tired of really powerful white organizers going to anti-racist trainings, getting an over-inflated sense of the negative impact of their actions on people of color, and essentially dropping out of the movement because they felt like they had no place. (this also replicates white supremacy by saying that white people's actions can make or break people of color's movements) Yes, we need to be conscientious of things, yes we need to be accountable to people of color, but we need to be doing things to be conscientious of and accountable for. I don't know if I am recreating this sentiment fully enough, it's something I'm still struggling with.

core strengths, values, and motivations
Then we were asked to look deep into ourselves with a loving lens and look at what our core strengths, values, and motivations were. This got real intense as the facilitators would ask people to step up and actually announce one of their own strengths, and then asked the rest of the participants to reflect back to them a moment when they noticed that person exhibiting that strength. For me, a lot of my motivations and values boils down to straight up love and a belief that anything is possible if we want it. That's what moves me. The love part is also a vulnerability for me because I'm real in touch with love, and crave more of it than I think I get.


Impacts
We then looked at how the idealized self-image impacted our anti-racist work and our relationship with other whites and people of color. One person brought up that she was projecting her idealized self-image so well that people believed she was all those things, got intimidated by her, and then pulled away. Another thought is that having unrealistically high expectations of ourselves then leads to others feeling that if they don't meet the same standard, they shouldn't be participating in the movement. That we often set the bar too high for ourselves or others to be able to participate.

The exercise we did at the end was joining in a circle and holding hands, then one at a time, turning to the person on your right, calling them out by name, and saying "Your leadership is needed,". Then the person on your left says that to you. It's a little hard to take seriously because the person is saying it because they're supposed to, but it's amazing how vulnerably I need to hear that from someone who I admire and believe. How do I balance believing that I am my leadership is needed and also believing that leadership by people of color is primary?

Grassroots Fundraising

So, after all this looking at how the non-profit, foundation-grant-funded organizational model can't be truly revolutionary - what's left to keep an organization running? Funding from the grassroots, of course! Not only is that the most strategically effective, it is actually the most realistic. During session a guest presenter and longtime fundraising expert, Nisha Anand, broke down a lot of statistics that I'd love to share with you all.

Where Does Organizational Funding Come From?
75% from individuals
7.5% from bequests
12.5% from foundations
5% from corporations

So why do groups spend so much time chasing down foundations and corporations - yes, they are large sums, but that makes it even more vulnerable. One foundation can change its mind (as has happened to several groups with radical politics (supporting Palestine, etc) and pull the rug out from under a project.

Who Gives in the USA?
  • Seven out of 10 people give to non-profits
  • 85% of money from individuals comes from households with a family income less than $60,000.
  • Households that make under $10,000 give away 5.5% of their income every year.
  • Households that make over $100,000 give away 2.5% of their income every year.
So it's true, the more you make, the less you give away proportionally. Also, looking at these numbers, you have to realize that the majority of money funding projects comes from people who have very little wealth! That could be a combo of just being more generous in general and of funding causes because they have a real chance of positively impacting their lives.

Which Fundraising Tactics are most financially effective?
(looking at the time you put in versus the money you get out)
0% Special Events (such as galas, etc)
1-2% Direct Mail
10-15% Door-to-Door canvassing
10% Phone call w/written follow up
15% Personalized letter followed up with a phone call
25% Personal Phone call followed up with a letter
50% Personal Visit with a face-to-face ask

We did a lot of work around why people feel uncomfortable asking for money - that capitalism requires us keeping quiet about money (and inequities in wages, etc) so we are taught never to talk about money. We looked at different fears people have around asking for money, and different strategies to use to do fundraising. We have all been tasked with raising at least $700 for Catalyst (our program registration fees don't come anywhere close to covering Catalyst's costs). So in a bit I will be asking all of you all to contribute what you can!

The Revolution will Not be Funded

Much credit for this mind blowing goes to INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence who have been leading the discussion in this arena for years.

So I've certainly heard that "the revolution will not be funded" before - when you think about it, of course, why would the class of people with exorbitant want to fund projects that will successfully end such gross inequities of wealth? When an organization is dependent on winning the favor of foundations or government grants, they actually tailor their work to meet the requirements of the foundation - and accountability to the people they intend to serve/empower (depending on the organization) is lost. The organization is less focused on what is actually working for their members/clients, but what looks good to funders.

The Taming of Social Uprising
An even deeper analysis (given by Andrea Smith in the anthology of essays "The Revolution will not be funded") looks to how radical, grassroots movements have been tamed and controlled by "incorporating" into 501(c)3 non-profits. A clear model is the gay liberation movement, which we all know erupted as a working class, multi-racial rebellion against police oppression.

"In the wake of the riots, intense discussions took place in the city's gay community. During the first week of July, a small group of lesbians and gay men started talking about establishing a new organization called the Gay Liberation Front. The name was consciously chosen for its association with the anti-imperialist struggles in Vietnam and Algeria. Sections of the GLF would go on to organize solidarity for arrested Black Panthers, collect money for striking workers, and link the battle for gay rights to the banner of socialism."

Yes, gays sharing struggle with Black panthers and Third World Revolutionaries in the name of radical socialism! Today? The mainstream gay struggle is that, mainstream, and focuses on things like gay marriage and HIV funding, and has lost most of its connections with other oppressed groups. I think that transformation is a direct result of incorporating as non-profits.


Or for a more documented affect, Andrea Smith points to the work of Robert L. Allen in tracking how the "Ford Foundation began supporting Black civil rights and Black Power organizations such as CORE - and started shifting their focus from Black liberation to Black capitalism. Similarly, Madonna Thunder Hawk describes how the offer of well-paying jobs in the non-profit sector seduced many native activists into diverting their energy from organizing to social service delivery and program development."

If you think, it doesn't have to be like that, there are lots of really awesome philanthropists out there that sincerely support social change - well, I don't know enough to discredit that, but what I have learned is the origins of Foundations. Starting in the early 1900s, foundations were created as a direct tax shield for wealthy people and corporations. Think of how many billions of dollars which would have been public money (though I of course don't trust our government to put public money to good use) that very theoretically could be controlled by the public, instead a wealthy individual gets direct control over where that many goes - and thus chooses projects which are in his/her interest - not the public interest. I know for me, I would love to believe that wealthy philanthropists or boards of foundations truly have public interest at heart, but, even in the most altruistic scenarios, it is virtually impossible for people with that amount of wealth (or who run in those circles enough to be named to the board of a foundation) can actually EVEN KNOW what oppressed groups of people need to liberate themselves.

The Non-Profit Industrial Complex
(ya know I had to go there!)
Another effect is the professionalization of the movement. With non-profits, certain people are chosen and then get paid to lead the work, and the effects are many:
  1. People with more education, credentials, class privilege get chosen to lead work instead of the people most affected by the situation
  2. Those activists then get attached more to the careerism and funding than in the effectiveness of the work
  3. "The NPIC (non-profit industrial complex) encourages us to think of social justice organizing as a career; that is, you do the work if you can get paid for it. However a mass movement requires the involvement of millions of people, most of whom cannot get paid. By trying to do grassroots organizing through this careerist model, we are essentially asking a few people to work more than full-time to make up for the work that needs to be done by millions."
  4. This funding scheme makes organizations compete with each other instead of collaborating, as they struggle to define to funders how their work is unique and more important than others' work.
Honestly, this article by Andrea Smith goes on and on with more and more brilliant points, and I could just keep quoting and quoting. Really, you should read the book!

We Need a Movement that Can Incorporate Everyone
Another article from this book, by Paula X. Rojas, really gets into how professionalized, incorporated models of organizing will never reach the scale or be accountable (and thus effective) to the majority of people who I believe should be the one rewriting the script of the world order. I think this not only applies to non-profits, but also to other movements with cultures that promote the idea that you must be a full-time activist in order to be committed, and that don't allow place for the majority of people - whose lives involve a healthy mix of childrearing, supporting other family, working for money, taking leisure time, caring for mental health and otherwise dealing with the real effects of centuries of oppression as poor, female, and/or people of color.

I know this makes me want to study Latin American social movements more, as they are able to involve millions of people in protest on a regular basis, or lead to things as the Zapatista uprising. And really do some thinking about how I can make sure that I'm putting my energy into projects that have a chance at succeeding on a mass scale, and not just finding a place for myself as an "activist."

Damn, y'all!