Passion - you really are guided by reason. I love your reply. No, I cannot offer an objective definition of "activist", but let's try to find one. Remember, objectivity is not my strong suit, so keep that in mind - okay?
I belong to a multi-disciplinary activist network. Most activists I know have anywhere from 10 to 40 years’…
Passion - you really are guided by reason. I love your reply. No, I cannot offer an objective definition of "activist", but let's try to find one. Remember, objectivity is not my strong suit, so keep that in mind - okay?
I belong to a multi-disciplinary activist network. Most activists I know have anywhere from 10 to 40 years’ experience as activists, organizers and civic entrepreneurs. A lot of activists lend their professional expertise and knowledge to the work (lawyers, accountants, doctors, linguists, etc.). Rural land-use and cultural planning is my specialty. I also bake cakes and cookies.
There are no college degrees in activism, so activists must teach themselves, learn from others, learn from mistakes, and eventually teach new activists.
Newbie activists have no frigging idea what they’re doing and no respect for those who do. They walk into some meeting, look around and decide, they are the most qualified person in the room. Near as I can tell, they make this decision based on our appearance.
Activism is the people’s game, not a game show. Activists have power, The know how to use it. And they do not squander it or give it away. Activists don’t look like powerhouses; we don’t wear fancy suits, drive fancy cars and a lot of us wear thrift store clothes. But Senators, Congressmen and elected officials take our calls, and they take our meetings. National political parties send people to meet with us. We raise millions of dollars to fund our own work. If we call, 500 people show up. Politicians and VIPs, and CEOs, do not mess around with people power. More often than not, they try to hire us.
True story. One year a newbie joined one of our activist organizations. About six months later, Mary was on our agenda, but was late, so we waited for her report. Mary finally arrived and began her report. When newbie, Debby realized that Mary had just come from a meeting with our Senator, she came unglued. Off she went on a lecture about “our image” and the appropriate attire for a meeting with a “Senator” and proper etiquette (OMG). Newbie Debby had no frigging idea who she was talking to.
Mary never went to college, or law school. She taught herself the law, passed the bar the first time, got her license and had been practicing labor law for decades. At night, Mary taught the law to farmworker’s children. Just like Mary, her students pass the bar on the first try, get their license and practice law. If Mary makes the call, 1,500 people show up. You don’t speak that way, to a woman like Mary.
So, Passion, what do we do with newbie activists? How do we manage their expectations? And what do we call them?
There seems to be two issues about "activists" here.
(1) Distinguishing old timers with experience, from newbie activists working within the same movement. I would think that might just involve teaching some respect for elders in the movement (elders by experience, not just age). _This is of course leaving out people whose activism is declared in their online profiles and who may never have even met, much less worked alongside, a long term activist in the field like yourself (much less Mary)._
(2) Distinguishing Stacie Abrams and Marjorie Taylor Greene. This appears to be a different distinction than #1. I'm sure we can find people who have worked in the trenches against abortion for decades; would they qualify as "activists" due to their long experience?
Passion, we’re making progress – yes? Good thinking. Good questions. Good phrasing.
(1) By necessity, civic activists are self-educating. I promise you, us, old-timers are learning from younger newbies whose technology, social media and communication skills far surpass ours. Put the old-timers together with young newbies and they are dynamite good and super effective.
On their own, newbie activists are counter-productive, even destructive. 1. They don’t know how government works and lack the civic education necessary to effect a change of policy, systems or directions. 2. They have tons of information but little experience using that information to craft a vision. 3. They lack strategic skills and organizational planning skills. 4. They are not clear on the difference between civic education and political propaganda.
I mentor several young activists and they are far beyond me in many ways, all they lack is experience. After the Roe decision came down, two of my young activists told me they finally understand how important it is to know how government works. Right now, they are studying the U.S. Constitution and their state Constitutions. Who knows how long it will be before they study state and local government. Until then, they rely on me. Passion, relying on someone else for basic 101 stuff, is not okay.
(2) Absolutely! My views on civic activism have nothing to do with politics. Pro-life activists are amazingly good. I don’t like their tactics, I don’t agree with their goals, and I fear they are short-sighted, but I have tremendous respect for the work these activists do. The commitment pro-life activists have demonstrated for the last fifty years is awesome.
Crisis pregnancy centers are ubiquitous in rural America. Women count on their support, only to discover that support ends very quickly after delivery. Over 400,000 children are already in the system, and these numbers will increase rapidly. The idea that experienced pro-life activists might walk away, now the Roe was overturned, terrifies me.
Wait a minute here. I was about to post and read what I wrote and caught something new. Is there a generation gap here? Young (age 16 – 30) newbie activists are terrific to work with. It’s the older, over 30, newbies that are so destructive. Passion, have you any thoughts on that?
Interesting observation about 16-30 yo newbie activists and 30+ yo newbie activists. There could be something about the birth cohort, or just about current stage of maturity (or some of each of course). We could check back in 15 years and see if the same pattern repeats with the same ages, or if the pattern shifts upward in age by 15 years. (Joking about doing that, not joking about that being a useful datapoint if one could wait for the results).
---
So if the distinction you want to make between Stacy Abrams and Marjorie Taylor Greene is the number of years of experience as activists, how many more years of activism would the latter need before graduating from cluster-fuck to activist?
Passion, are we discussing activism, or my opinion of Marjorie Taylor Greene? If you want to discuss Greene, say so. If you want to defend Greene, do it. If you want to praise her, I’d like to hear what she does that pleases you. Your turn.
Talking about activism and the proper definition of the term "activist".
I find MTG atrocious for many reasons. The length of time she has been active is not among them, however.
But the contrast between MTG and Stacy Abrams was used above to distinguish "activists", so I'm looking for what criteria are being used, other than our liking one more than the other. We very likely agree on which of those two we prefer; that is not the issue.
Passion - you really are guided by reason. I love your reply. No, I cannot offer an objective definition of "activist", but let's try to find one. Remember, objectivity is not my strong suit, so keep that in mind - okay?
I belong to a multi-disciplinary activist network. Most activists I know have anywhere from 10 to 40 years’ experience as activists, organizers and civic entrepreneurs. A lot of activists lend their professional expertise and knowledge to the work (lawyers, accountants, doctors, linguists, etc.). Rural land-use and cultural planning is my specialty. I also bake cakes and cookies.
There are no college degrees in activism, so activists must teach themselves, learn from others, learn from mistakes, and eventually teach new activists.
Newbie activists have no frigging idea what they’re doing and no respect for those who do. They walk into some meeting, look around and decide, they are the most qualified person in the room. Near as I can tell, they make this decision based on our appearance.
Activism is the people’s game, not a game show. Activists have power, The know how to use it. And they do not squander it or give it away. Activists don’t look like powerhouses; we don’t wear fancy suits, drive fancy cars and a lot of us wear thrift store clothes. But Senators, Congressmen and elected officials take our calls, and they take our meetings. National political parties send people to meet with us. We raise millions of dollars to fund our own work. If we call, 500 people show up. Politicians and VIPs, and CEOs, do not mess around with people power. More often than not, they try to hire us.
True story. One year a newbie joined one of our activist organizations. About six months later, Mary was on our agenda, but was late, so we waited for her report. Mary finally arrived and began her report. When newbie, Debby realized that Mary had just come from a meeting with our Senator, she came unglued. Off she went on a lecture about “our image” and the appropriate attire for a meeting with a “Senator” and proper etiquette (OMG). Newbie Debby had no frigging idea who she was talking to.
Mary never went to college, or law school. She taught herself the law, passed the bar the first time, got her license and had been practicing labor law for decades. At night, Mary taught the law to farmworker’s children. Just like Mary, her students pass the bar on the first try, get their license and practice law. If Mary makes the call, 1,500 people show up. You don’t speak that way, to a woman like Mary.
So, Passion, what do we do with newbie activists? How do we manage their expectations? And what do we call them?
There seems to be two issues about "activists" here.
(1) Distinguishing old timers with experience, from newbie activists working within the same movement. I would think that might just involve teaching some respect for elders in the movement (elders by experience, not just age). _This is of course leaving out people whose activism is declared in their online profiles and who may never have even met, much less worked alongside, a long term activist in the field like yourself (much less Mary)._
(2) Distinguishing Stacie Abrams and Marjorie Taylor Greene. This appears to be a different distinction than #1. I'm sure we can find people who have worked in the trenches against abortion for decades; would they qualify as "activists" due to their long experience?
I would not dignify Greene with any title like "activist." She is an utterly vile human being and the is the alpha and the omega.
I saw her burst into laughter at the mention of thousands dying of COVID. She thought it was funny, She deserves impalement.
Passion, we’re making progress – yes? Good thinking. Good questions. Good phrasing.
(1) By necessity, civic activists are self-educating. I promise you, us, old-timers are learning from younger newbies whose technology, social media and communication skills far surpass ours. Put the old-timers together with young newbies and they are dynamite good and super effective.
On their own, newbie activists are counter-productive, even destructive. 1. They don’t know how government works and lack the civic education necessary to effect a change of policy, systems or directions. 2. They have tons of information but little experience using that information to craft a vision. 3. They lack strategic skills and organizational planning skills. 4. They are not clear on the difference between civic education and political propaganda.
I mentor several young activists and they are far beyond me in many ways, all they lack is experience. After the Roe decision came down, two of my young activists told me they finally understand how important it is to know how government works. Right now, they are studying the U.S. Constitution and their state Constitutions. Who knows how long it will be before they study state and local government. Until then, they rely on me. Passion, relying on someone else for basic 101 stuff, is not okay.
(2) Absolutely! My views on civic activism have nothing to do with politics. Pro-life activists are amazingly good. I don’t like their tactics, I don’t agree with their goals, and I fear they are short-sighted, but I have tremendous respect for the work these activists do. The commitment pro-life activists have demonstrated for the last fifty years is awesome.
Crisis pregnancy centers are ubiquitous in rural America. Women count on their support, only to discover that support ends very quickly after delivery. Over 400,000 children are already in the system, and these numbers will increase rapidly. The idea that experienced pro-life activists might walk away, now the Roe was overturned, terrifies me.
Wait a minute here. I was about to post and read what I wrote and caught something new. Is there a generation gap here? Young (age 16 – 30) newbie activists are terrific to work with. It’s the older, over 30, newbies that are so destructive. Passion, have you any thoughts on that?
Interesting observation about 16-30 yo newbie activists and 30+ yo newbie activists. There could be something about the birth cohort, or just about current stage of maturity (or some of each of course). We could check back in 15 years and see if the same pattern repeats with the same ages, or if the pattern shifts upward in age by 15 years. (Joking about doing that, not joking about that being a useful datapoint if one could wait for the results).
---
So if the distinction you want to make between Stacy Abrams and Marjorie Taylor Greene is the number of years of experience as activists, how many more years of activism would the latter need before graduating from cluster-fuck to activist?
Passion, are we discussing activism, or my opinion of Marjorie Taylor Greene? If you want to discuss Greene, say so. If you want to defend Greene, do it. If you want to praise her, I’d like to hear what she does that pleases you. Your turn.
Talking about activism and the proper definition of the term "activist".
I find MTG atrocious for many reasons. The length of time she has been active is not among them, however.
But the contrast between MTG and Stacy Abrams was used above to distinguish "activists", so I'm looking for what criteria are being used, other than our liking one more than the other. We very likely agree on which of those two we prefer; that is not the issue.