Monday, July 17, 2006
Activist Damage Control
This is the spittin' image of a post in my blog.
Keith Boykin has responded most astutely to LIFEbeat's recent concert endeavor. LIFEbeat is an organization dedicated to educating youth about HIV/AIDS. Wonderful, fabulous, important (life or death important) cause. This of course goes with little saying. However, LIFEbeat's choice of artist for the concert is problematic. While HIV/AIDS has ended the lives of countless gay men and women, LIFEbeat goes on to allow two acts who promote the murder of gays and lesbians. (IF we don't die one way we should die the other?)
This isn't a blog to talk about the controversial choice and how to fight it or whether or not LIFEbeat is wrong for inviting these fools (uh, yeah). My interest in this is how activism meets pop culture. We ran into the very issue Boykin is facing here in the Spelman/Nelly protest, where you have a misogynist rapper promoting a worthy cause. How can an activist comfortably speak truth to power in such a situation? Either way, the activist looks like they are 1) out of touch with the "rest" of society. 2) Less than concerned about the philanthropic issue at hand (i.e. Leukemia or HIV/AIDS) 3) Too sensitive about an issue that is less important than the above.
I am one that believes that hatred, whether towards women or Queer folk is ruthlessly pervasive, and I would venture to say that such instances where pop culture that promotes hate meets these very important health causes is not a coincidence. It merely reinforces for mainstream society the validity of misogyny, racism, and in the case of LIFEbeat, homophobia. It presupposes that homophobia is an issue that can be separated from HIV/AIDS research (hmm... tell that to folks who died of an under-researched disease called the gay plague). Or that leukemia can be separated from feminism ("Nelly, we love your sister, why don't you love ours?"). Such events make the oppressed and marginalized folk look crazed, (really who would protest against such a good cause if they weren't crazed?) Unsympathetic to the more "important" issue, and too wrapped up in their own gay/feminist agendas to see the importance of such issues.
It's called crazymaking--and just as it exists in personal relationships--it exists in the larger world as well.
The dilemma for the activist is then, how to fight your battles when you've picked them. I believe, fighting the bullshit where it is born is oh so important, but the battle is not in how one speaks about their issue (images of black women in the media or gay bashing), but how one has devised a damage control plan. The health organization or media will always jump to the assumption that the activist wants to end the good cause, instead of reading into it that the activist is calling for a reconsideration of the hateful artist. This is my damage control template:
Have any of your own?
Keith Boykin has responded most astutely to LIFEbeat's recent concert endeavor. LIFEbeat is an organization dedicated to educating youth about HIV/AIDS. Wonderful, fabulous, important (life or death important) cause. This of course goes with little saying. However, LIFEbeat's choice of artist for the concert is problematic. While HIV/AIDS has ended the lives of countless gay men and women, LIFEbeat goes on to allow two acts who promote the murder of gays and lesbians. (IF we don't die one way we should die the other?)
This isn't a blog to talk about the controversial choice and how to fight it or whether or not LIFEbeat is wrong for inviting these fools (uh, yeah). My interest in this is how activism meets pop culture. We ran into the very issue Boykin is facing here in the Spelman/Nelly protest, where you have a misogynist rapper promoting a worthy cause. How can an activist comfortably speak truth to power in such a situation? Either way, the activist looks like they are 1) out of touch with the "rest" of society. 2) Less than concerned about the philanthropic issue at hand (i.e. Leukemia or HIV/AIDS) 3) Too sensitive about an issue that is less important than the above.
I am one that believes that hatred, whether towards women or Queer folk is ruthlessly pervasive, and I would venture to say that such instances where pop culture that promotes hate meets these very important health causes is not a coincidence. It merely reinforces for mainstream society the validity of misogyny, racism, and in the case of LIFEbeat, homophobia. It presupposes that homophobia is an issue that can be separated from HIV/AIDS research (hmm... tell that to folks who died of an under-researched disease called the gay plague). Or that leukemia can be separated from feminism ("Nelly, we love your sister, why don't you love ours?"). Such events make the oppressed and marginalized folk look crazed, (really who would protest against such a good cause if they weren't crazed?) Unsympathetic to the more "important" issue, and too wrapped up in their own gay/feminist agendas to see the importance of such issues.
It's called crazymaking--and just as it exists in personal relationships--it exists in the larger world as well.
The dilemma for the activist is then, how to fight your battles when you've picked them. I believe, fighting the bullshit where it is born is oh so important, but the battle is not in how one speaks about their issue (images of black women in the media or gay bashing), but how one has devised a damage control plan. The health organization or media will always jump to the assumption that the activist wants to end the good cause, instead of reading into it that the activist is calling for a reconsideration of the hateful artist. This is my damage control template:
- When writing first letter to organization with good cause, always stress how important the cause is to you, and how you as an activist are dedicated to the cause and would like to offer your support for said cause.
- Use intersectional analysis for that ass. Why the person they've blindly invited actually confuses the message of the cause, and who it needs to be sent to. (I mean really, they must assume only straight homophobic kids need to hear an HIV/AIDS awareness message. Or that gay youth are ignorant of the hateful messages these artists promote towards their well being.)
- After discussing the problematic speaker/star/"artist" fervently suggest an artist/speaker/star with an equally if not bigger crowd-drawing capability. A person or group with a track record of helping in this issue would be best. Stress this person. Maybe hint at why you don't even understand why they didn't think of this person in the first place. (A little crazymaking of your own.)
- Shake the haters off. They are like hungry rodents. Answer to few. The comments will be the same and will basically be around the theme of: "Get over it its a good cause." As if a good cause couldn't be problematic. Remind yourself of the many movements that gained increased visibility because of strife within other movements (White feminism, Black feminism/Womanism, Black Nationalism, etc.)
Have any of your own?
# posted by a black girl @ 7:18 PM 
