Deep Thought: Where Have All the Brothers and Sisters Gone?
Created | Updated Mar 12, 2023
Deep Thought: Where Have All the Brothers and Sisters Gone?
 |
Is there any solidarity between oppressed people?
Or do we have to divide everything?
The user who posted this query on Twitter was responding to an exchange between two other people. The first person had joined in a round of #SayHerName by mentioning a woman who had suffered wrongful death at the hands of police. The second person had chided the first person for doing this: it was wrong, said the second person, because the woman victim of police brutality wasn't Black. #SayHerName was only for Black people, didn't she know?
A bit of background: on Twitter and other social media there's been a laudable attempt to fight back against what I was complaining about last week: poor reporting. One way in which bad journalists skew the public's perception of events is to slight the victims of wrongdoing by misrepresenting them, or making sure nobody hears their names. That way, readers can't relate to them as people – and there's much less likelihood that somebody will demand change.
The Twitter initiative #SayHerName came about because of this tendency to erase the public memory of victims of injustice. It is akin to the tradition of reading aloud the names of victims of mass shootings, bombings, aircraft crashes, and other events manmade and otherwise which exact a high death toll. We do these things to remember those who have been lost to us. At the same time there has been a push for news media to avoid immortalising the names of mass murderers, to rob them of their 'place in history.' This, too, is understandable.
The problem with these social media initiatives is that they're essentially the conversations you used to have at your Stammtisch or local diner or corner pub – magnified about a million times. Just like those local conversations, there is a danger that online 'discourse' (that's what they're calling it these days) will be dominated by the loudest voices. You know, the ones who hector and bully everyone else into submission.
The online bullies are like any other conversation bully. They have two objectives. First, get the conversation back to their favourite topic: themselves. Second, make sure that they, and they alone, are regarded as the arbiter of the acceptable.
Since what this strain of social media trades in is opinion, it is of paramount importance that the online bully 'gatekeep' (that's the correct term) the admissibility of opinions. Further inspection of the 'you-can't-say-her-name-because-she's-white' thread reveals harsh accusations thrown at the defenders of a user's right to employ the term for a white trans victim. They're called clueless, 'appropriating' (meaning 'taking something cultural that doesn't belong to you'), and even racist.
This makes me sad, as I believe it made the poster quoted above sad. How does anybody get any justice in the world if everyone has to protest alone, in cliques and clans? If the second somebody shows up who's a little bit different from you, you turn on them and chase them off with taunts?
The picture at the top of this page is one I grabbed from the Library of Congress. It shows women uniting in 1969. You'll notice they aren't as exclusive as Twitter. I was around back then – yeah, I'm so old I may grow into the mountain and turn to stone, so what? I remember that the kind of people who cared about one cause usually cared about another. If they opposed the war they also cared about the environment. And prison reform. And immigrants, minorities, Palestinians, whatever monkeyshines the CIA was getting up to, etc, etc. We were equal-opportunity worriers.
'So why didn't y'all fix everything before WE got here?' I hear you saying in a not-very-nice tone of voice that your grandmother would not approve of. Shame on you.
In the first place, while the western world didn't become a paradise on Earth, the generation that came of age in the late 60s-early 70s did accomplish some good. The war ended, not as soon as it should have. Minorities got more rights, public safety laws were passed, initiatives were organised…
You know, all those things the opposition wants to get rid of now. Yeah, somebody said 'you can't dump that in the river', and some corporation just waited patiently until it could pay off enough politicians to get that law taken down. Eternal vigilance is the price of…yadda yadda.
At any rate, it was a start, and that's where the succeeding generations come in. If you don't get out and vote, talk among yourselves, and organise to get things done, there's a serious danger that society may slip back to the way it was in the 1950s.
Some people sigh for the 'good old days.' But you won't get 'the good old days.' You won't find what you're looking for: simpler times, more lasting values, better-tasting food, nicer cars. Oh, no. What you'll get is all the ignorance, prejudice, and paranoia of those times. Plus, you'll be swimming in the pollution you've already put in there and eating the miserably tasteless food your corporate suppliers have seen fit to market.
Splitting into microfactions suits the agendas of those who are benefiting from the chaos. You want to do something about something? Cast your net wider. Stop being so proprietary about your personal grievances. Learn to care about your neighbour – and then maybe your neighbour will start to care about you, too.
