Written by Mimi   

Can a Civil Rights Movement Include Women, Minorities and poor people?

I woke up thinking about this concept this morning. Yes, I have strange early morning thoughts, I know.
Tsk... tsk... (Puts hand over mouth as though to prevent laughing then bows head in embarrassment before letting out nervous chuckle.)

I think these bizarre thoughts first thing in the morning, and sometimes during pensive moments throughout the day, and sometimes I write/type them out for all to see and contemplate. I'm a strange one, and I'm the first to admit to it, but the question remains:

Can a civil rights movement include women and minorities? Poor people? Are we allowed in? Or are civil rights movements exclusive to affluent, white males (like everything else except the pain of “isms” and child birth?)

Certain movements such as the gay rights, animal rights, and environmentalist causes do affect the affluent, so we hear a lot from them about their concerns, but we don't hear much from poor people or ordinary people in general.

Have poor people been silenced? Or are they so disenfranchised that they've learned to accept their situation? Perhaps they can no longer imagine a better life for themselves? Perhaps they've accepted the idea that they deserve their lot in life, that they aren't working hard enough, aren't doing enough of the "right" things or aren't being "positive" enough?

So... can social justice movements include poor people, women and minorities? Or are we doomed to repeat history over and over again by perpetuating the very thing we claim to be against?

When women were treated like second-class-citizens by men in the civil rights movement, women started their own movement for women's rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UG7YCgkXTo

Of course, women breaking away from the civil rights movement divided and, therefore, weakened the overall movement for social justice. But that division wouldn't have happened if activists had been able to “be” the change they sought rather than just protest for others to change. Sorry, guys, but men and women need to fight for social change together.

Now, history repeats itself again with a so-called “men's rights” group proliferating throughout the Internet, attacking “feminists” and the men who love them, bullying women away from expressing “feminist” opinions on the 'Net. Trolling is a form of censorship that shuts down healthy and productive discussion. Trolls pretend to be standing up for free speech (their own) while they attempt to bully other people into remaining silent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wlfBIIzjMs

(And as much as I appreciate the above video and an excellent debate that took place, I can't help but notice the lack of women political commentators on many of these “liberal” sites as well. Outside of Abby Martin, who just quit RT, there's just Ana Kasparian of TYT. That's about it. Are women not following and commenting on politics or are we being silenced when we do? Do Americans prefer to hear from male political pundits or are there just not enough female pundits to choose from?)

At the same time, the women's movement appears to reflect the needs of affluent, white women—not poor or minority women. Its emphasis on abortion and gay rights with little discussion of equal employment opportunities and violence against women is evidence of this. Those are issues that primarily affect poor women who need better paying jobs and career options and who often use public transportation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gSfCnVE3gU

Women (and people of color) comprise most of those who are poor in this country. Not only are we paid less than men but we are less likely to get hired for upper-level positions that involve decision making and power within most companies. Corporate culture is decidedly "masculine," in every sense of the word. And many of us still don't feel safe walking down the street. That's not a problem wealthy women living in gated communities or affluent suburbs frequently have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3VvW78-iHI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2OcKQ_mbiQ

The famous quote that poor Americans think we're all “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” is thought to be a misquote from John Steinbeck. But what Steinbeck really said is even more intriguing and makes one wonder why we hear the misquote more often. Steinbeck's actual statement refers to the fact that most American activists he came across were middle-class or wealthy but not poor. (I don't have the actual book in front of me, so you'll have to excuse me, but if anyone out there does have the book, please do leave a comment with the actual quote. I believe it is from "America and Americans.”
Here's the quote I found:


“Except for the field organizers of strikes, who were pretty much tough monkeys and devoted, most of the so-called Communists I met were middle class, middle-aged people playing a game of dreams. I remember a woman in easy circumstances saying to another even more affluent: 'After the revolution even we will have more, won't we, dear?... I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians.'” --sources:
http://hellyesjohnsteinbeck.tumblr.com/post/23486952183/commonly-misquoted-socialism-never-took-root-in
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck
http://classifieds.njherald.com/story/news/Dupuy-10-31-web


This backs up my own personal (and, admittedly, subjective) experience with Occupy and other movements—mostly white, mostly upper-middle-class, though not necessarily middle-aged, members and often male-dominated, from what I've seen.

Why is this? Are poor people, women and minorities so disenfranchised that they can't even get angry and fight for their rights? Do we need a wealthy, privileged minority to create social change in this country? Is it impossible for poor people to make a difference?

Or is it that activists for social justice can't eliminate our own prejudices, can't see the importance of creating a movement that includes ordinary, working-class people?

Or maybe it's just that activists who attempt to include everyone end up assassinated?

Whether it's a conspiracy on the part of those in power to divide us against each other or whether it's just that we human beings—regardless of how oriented toward social justice we think we are—can't eliminate our own prejudices and our own internal flaws, we need to understand this:

A movement for social justice needs to include women, black people and poor people in order to be successful. It may need to include some people we disagree with on some issues too.

(By the way, here's an example of a movement that's including poor people:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eK7yvmdSRg

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2015/2/21/watch_pablo_iglesias_hope_is_changing

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/17/the_next_syriza_as_greece_rejects

If a movement becomes focused on certain personalities, celebrity activists, or father figures (patriarchal archetypes?) who appeal to our need to be comforted or titillated then it becomes a fad or mere entertainment. (And it puts the activist leaders' lives in danger as well. Martin Luther King wouldn't have been assassinated if his killers thought that the movement would have carried on just as well without him.)

Look, it's normal to look up to people we admire, but we don't need to idealize them or give them power over us. We can be the change we seek in the world. We can make small changes in the world around us without depending on a hero to rescue us. We can acknowledge our egos which make us all a little self-absorbed and remind ourselves of what is really important after all, i.e., the greater good.

Or...

We can go to the store and buy tie-dyed tee-shirts, love beads, and yoga mats, but the ideals of the hippie movement are gone. We've lost most of our freedom and all of our love for each other in this country. But yeah, the tee-shirts are cool...and...

As we watch our own reflection in the security mirrors and cameras and in the eyes of the hostile security guards glaring at us while we shop at our local co-op, we might buy vegan so that fewer animals suffer... and...

We can celebrate MLK Day and brag about how non-racist we are (while somewhere else in the country a black person is waiting out in the cold for a bus to go to work at a minimum-wage job or, worse, being hassled by the police.)

But..

Do we want to talk about change or do we want to work toward making it happen?
Do we want to say we've changed, to brag about it, to buy pictures of it, to watch movies about it,

or

do we

really,

truly,

want

change?