The Midnight Bus to D.C...

So...

I know I'm mad late catching up with the political world...probably folks have already seen this but I'm reading Michelle Obama's senior thesis at Princeton on the changing social values of Princeton educated Black folks...

and can I just say that I understand a major reason that I have been so ignorant of the media circus surrounding the Obamas for so long...the media tripe is disgusting and stupid and really racist...and it's a drain to sift through the media commentary to try to get to the Obamas themselves...

But hey those are my two cents.

but it is still too funny how I have done a very recent 360 on the Obama issue...

I think as the elections have become more real...as I have been transplanted back to Brooklyn and have seen the fervor here over Obama (folks walking around with the cutest bags that read I Obama Bklyn instead of I <3 Bklyn)...as I have begun T-Aing for a ninth grade class whose entire focus is on the 2008 presidential elections and the historical context of previous attempts by African-Americans/women to run for the presidency...as I have really sat with the idea that a Black family might really be innn the white house, regardless of what I feel about Ameri(kkk)an politics, even while knowing that on many issues the Obamas WILL have to pander to the white supremacist superstructure (or at least appear to), and they WILL have to appease white folks who are uncomfortable with the idea of inherited white skin privilege...as I have watched the little bit of media that I did let slide through continuously belittle and degrade Michelle Obama...as I have been inspired to watch some of her speeches and have been moved *to tears* by a few...as I am faced with the prospect that we may not have another old billionaire white dude serving as the "face" of the country (the same country that I already feel so deeply alienated from, anyway)...as I begin to imagine myself watching a Black hand on a Bible (though that symbolism disturbs me but whatever, let me not kill my own budding joy...) being sworn into the office of the presidency of the fucking United States of A...this weird sense of intensity just overwhelms me and all I can say is...well I'm actually left wordless...and I feel like all the time-tested rules I know about this nation and the nature of oppression...are fading away...or at least there is a *sense* that they are, I still recognize that the U.S. is still bent on empire building and being a capitalist beast but anywhoo...still I feel as if I don't know the rules anymore, as if anything is likely to happen...if Black folks manage to make their way into the white house after all the shit we been through building the shit and being the economic backbone of the country for centuries, and then being treated like scum and then being told that we are delusional and nationalist and militant and bitter whenever we attempt to process the fullness of what has been done to us, whenever we try to shield ourselves from further pain or whenever we try to just simply LIVE as if we are human beings...whenever we try to pay homage to our folk for being resilient people who survive, through it all...if we stillll get in the white house...that's just gonna be intense. I WILL cry. Annnnd I'mma be on the Chinatown bus express to D.C...

[But I still have qualms about this whole thing, like...]

it bothers me that we live in a culture where certain classes of folks are not given access to tools to lead themselves, and can never hope to see images of themselves in leadership positions...this weird, authoritarian, hierarchical culture where equality may be impossible to come by by virtue of the very way in which it's set up...yea, I think this is why I do all that research on anarchism...something about the idea of self-ownership and self-determination, rather than reliance on "leaders" and "models" is very appealing, but as a society I think we have a looooong way to go before we can ever hope to get to that place of true, radical equality, of self-ownership. It is said often that the only way true lasting change can be made is if the people needing the change mobilize themselves...so no president or non-profit organization can ever hope to fix all the problems for the people ALTHOUGH I do believe that if a president/organization has a vested interest in trying to return power BACK to the people and decentralize it rather than making a "name" for him/herself, rather than sitting back sipping coolattas and feeling happy to be "superior" to the masses, then those are steps in the right direction. If the president recognizes that the hierarchy that by default makes her "superior" is transitory and only a condition of the present times, and that there will no longer be a need for her post once the people are fully empowered...I feel that if a leader has the end goal of giving up the title and empowering folks to lead themselves so that the idea of classlessness might be made real, then they're good leaders.

While I don't believe that United States leadership system was set up to ever operate in that way, to ever give people true authority over their own destinies (rather, I think it was set up to forever maintain an impassable division between the ruled and the rulers while giving off the illusion that common folks have a real say in how they are governed, which is why most of our presidents have been rich white folk who claim to represent the interests of everybody *yawwwwn*, and the richest 1% of the country have such a heavy role in politics and control so much of it's wealth, 40% last I heard), if Barack Obama is in fact one of those people who truly wants to radically rework the notion of power and authority in our society, who wants to empower people and give them access to tools to change their lives rather than sipping on coolattas and playing golf with Bush and cronies and feeling good about himself for being president of the world's largest empire, then rock the fuck on! But even if he's not all the way that (and he is slowly winning me over...it was those adorable cute girls), I think the very SYMBOLISM of him in the white house...a young, Black lawyer who once worked on the grassroots level and paid for school in scholarships rather than inherited wealth, who is married to an equally powerful and well-educated Black woman who holds her ground and comes across as beautiful and determined despite attempts by the media to reshape and present her in those tired roles set up for Black women...Jezebel, Sapphire, Mammy...the very symbolism of this might be enough to trigger a change of consciousness in the hearts and minds of folks in this land...

[and I've noted how I felt the need to include the word "beautiful" in my description of Michelle while only speaking of Barack in terms of his intellectual and nonphysical qualities...internalized sexism duly noted and checked for next time]

But yea. I think it's safe to say that overall, I dig.

Voting

So I've already decided that I will most likely vote in the upcoming presidential election even though I'm mistrustful of the whole shebang for various reasons:

1. I've never voted before in life so why not "try it out"
2. I've never seen a Black person make it this far in the primary elections and I can barely believe I'm witnessing it
3. I'm succumbing (somewhat) to peer pressure because too many people have treated me like a pariah when I explained that I didn't want to vote...though I should note that if peer pressure was the only motivator for me to vote, it wouldn't be enough to actually bring me to the polls. But in combination with the previous two reasons, it is enough
4. A small part of me is falling for Obama's rhetoric

However, I found interesting critiques of the electoral process of an anarchist website that vibed with me. Here's the first one I read:


As Decision 2004 approaches, the apathetic masses rage through the streets
Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 02:45 AM CST
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 2,091
Anarchist Opinion
Submitted by prole cat

As the official presidential election year approaches on the distant horizon, the jockeying of the candidates has begun. Bush stands unopposed, of course, but the Democratic hopefuls jostle and elbow to be first in line, to receive the coveted “front-runner” coronation at the hands of the media.

Politicos are well familiar with this American ritual. Much will be said and written, now and during the earliest primaries, about the relative (in)significance of the horse race so far in advance of the actual election.

At some point between now and November, 2004, another too-familiar American ritual will begin to be acted out, as the predictable litany of complaints are lodged against the American populace. The less-than-1-in-4 turnout of eligible American voters will be analyzed, and the causes mourned. On the editorial pages of newspapers across America the citizenry will be portrayed as too lazy, too apathetic to bother to stop by their local polling station and mark an X on a ballot. With great sanctimony, readers will be reminded of the blood that was shed to preserve the sacred right to select one’s leaders.

Rarely does anyone question this version of reality. It is a truism that only the most civically engaged will go to the trouble to vote, while those who don’t are a bunch of ignorant couch potatoes who are too engrossed in the latest episode of reality television to do their noble duty.

The mythology of a disengaged American citizenry is always mistaken. This time around, being presented in the midst of a continuing grassroots peace and global justice movement, it will be downright silly. In the context of 2004, the classical formulation of dignified public servants shabbily treated by self-absorbed multitudes will more resemble the tattered remnants of some traditional religious dogma that science has rendered laughable, than serious analysis. It will more resemble the doctrinaire intonations of some Marxist sect whose texts the sweep of history has left behind, than any keen observation of the realities of American social life. Yet in the face of all logic, the press will stick to the script.

Continued...

I think I agree

From the website "Panarchy" (it's in my links)

Do I want to propose my own system? Not at all! I am an advocate of all systems, i. e. of all forms of government that find followers.
Every system is like a block of flats in which the proprietor and the main tenants have the best accommodations and feel well off. The others, for whom there is not sufficient space in it, are dissatisfied. I hate the destroyers as much as the tyrants. The dissatisfied ones should go their own way, but without destroying the building. What does not please them may give pleasure to their neighbours...

[P]eople are of a different mind, and have so varied customs that only this multiplicity of governments is possible.
One seeks excitement and struggle, the other wants rest, this one needs encouragement and aid, the other, a genius, tolerates no direction. One wishes for a republic, submission and renunciation, the other desires the absolute monarchy with its pomp and splendour. This orator wants a parliament, the silent one, there, condemns all the babblers. There are strong minds and weak heads, ambitious ones and simple and contented people. There are as many characters as there are persons, as many needs as there are different natures. How could all of them be satisfied by a single form of government? The contented ones will be in a minority. Even a perfect government would find its opposition.
Go here.

So I'm still trying to formulate exctly what I feel about anarchism, and the existence of the "state," and governments. While I can see the usefulness of government, SOMEthing about it always rubbed me a little bit the wrong way. And so I started reading about anarchism. It lead me to various sites. But when I found my way to this site, I realized that what rubbed me wrong about governments was the compulsion inherent in them. How EVERYone is supposed to be satisfied within them.

Freedom of government should be like freedom of religion...
You want to be under a monarch or a chief? Go ahead. A communist state? Have fun. A democratic state? Same. No state? Whoop dee doo.

But to subject all people under the rule of your particular form of government just because you want it is the opposite of liberty to me.

Now would this actually work? Could we actually achieve this level of freedom? Who knows. Certainly, it would require a revolution of consciousness amongst the citizens of the world. But it seems the most fair to me. And this kind of system of systems would theoretically abolish the violent mechanisms by which governments exercise their rule and assert their autonomy.

"A strong people don’t need strong leaders." – Ella Baker

What?

I'm discovering this new world of black anarchists. It's fascinating. Especially because I often find myself attracted to anarchist principles. (Yea, I still am attracted to anarchism as a philosophy, even if I am learning to embrace the usefulness of certain forms of leadership, especially group leadership rather than the leadership of a single person.) And especially because the few anarchists I have met have been white, largely unaware of their privilege, and annoying.

Quotables:

"Some of our ideas about who we are as a people hamper our struggles. For example, the Black community is often considered a monolithic group, but it is actually a community of communities with many different interests. I think of being Black not so much as an ethnic category but as an oppositional force or touchstone for looking at situations differently. Black culture has always been oppositional and is all about finding ways to creatively resist oppression here, in the most racist country in the world. So, when I speak of a Black anarchism, it is not so tied to the color of my skin but who I am as a person, as someone who can resist, who can see differently when I am stuck, and thus live differently."
-Ashanti Alston.

"Of all ideologies, anarchy is the one that addresses liberty and equalitarian relations in a realistic and ultimate fashion. It is consistent with each individual having an opportunity to live a complete and total 1ife, With anarchy, the society as a whole not only maintains itself at an equal expense to all, but progresses in a creative process unhindered by any class, caste or party. This is because the goals of anarchy don't include replacing one ruling class with another, neither in the guise of a fairer boss or as a party. This is key because this is what separates anarchist revolutionaries from Maoist, socialist and nationalist revolutionaries who from the onset do not embrace complete revolution. They cannot envision a truly free and equalitarian society and must to some extent embrace the socialization process that makes exploitation and oppression possible and prevalent in the first place."
-Kuwasi Balagoon.

"What we anarchists contend for is a larger opportunity to develop the units in society, that mankind may possess the right as a sound being to develop that which is broadest, noblest, highest and best, unhandicapped by any centralized authority, where he shall have to wait for his permits to be signed, sealed, approved and handed down to him before he can engage in the active pursuits of life with his fellow being. We know that after all, as we grow more enlightened under this larger liberty, we will grow to care less and less for that exact distribution of material wealth, which, in our greed-nurtured senses, seems now so impossible to think upon carelessly. The man and woman of loftier intellects, in the present, think not so much of the riches to be gained by their efforts as of the good they can do for their fellow creatures. There is an innate spring of healthy action in every human being who has not been crushed and pinched by poverty and drudgery from before his birth, that impels him onward and upward. He cannot be idle, if he would; it is as natural for him to develop, expand, and use the powers within him when no repressed, as it is for the rose to bloom in the sunlight and fling its fragrance on the passing breeze."
-Lucy Parsons.

On racism within the modern anarchist movement:
"We now call ourselves Anarchists. We say we want the end of all chains and the extermination of all oppression. Yet, in the Anarchist "movement", black folk and other folks of color are still in the senzala. We are still having to disguise ourselves, call whitey "Massa" and chain ourselves to the wall. No, don't talk about racism unless it is in that very abstract sense of we-are-all-equal-let's-sing-kumbayas-and-pretend-the-color-of-our-skin-does-not-matter" racism. While there might be nobody yelling "die, nigger, die!", you can hear a very clear “shut the fuck up, nigger, just shut the fuck up."
-Pedro Riberio.