Righteous Resistance

[keltic63]

I was out searching the internet, doing some research for an article and found this essay: Righteous Resistance and Martin Luther King Jr. by John C Raines. I found it to be interesting reading. I thought you might enjoy it too.

Whether they were learned 40 years ago in Warsaw, or 20 years ago along the hot and dusty roads of Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia, the lessons of righteous resistance are universal. They belong not to one but to all people who struggle for their dignity. Among the resisters of our own time and place, one name stands out above all the rest -- Martin Luther King, Jr. As King wrote in his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail”: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. What affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” King’s words and actions teach us invaluable lessons about resistance.

First, we learn from him that before there can be opposition to a situation of oppression, that situation must be recognized and named as oppressive. The first act of resistance is to gain clarity about one’s own situation, and unity of purpose among the oppressed. But that is not easy.

[Vanessa White]

Maybe that is why I like Barack Obama- he reminds me of him in passion, words, and manner. I downloaded a copy of the full article and won't have a chance to read it until later; love what was quoted however. It always manages to energize me, to read inspiring words.

[Vanessa White]

I read the entire article last night and there is some significant parts of it I want to comment on, but only have a minute right now. The whole article is fantastic.

[Daniel]

First, we learn from him that before there can be opposition to a situation of oppression, that situation must be recognized and named as oppressive. The first act of resistance is to gain clarity about one’s own situation, and unity of purpose among the oppressed. But that is not easy.

Wow. What more could one ask for in how to go about nonviolent resistance? If this isn't a 'how to' plan, what is?

Sounds like one of the first steps is cleaning one's 'closet'.

Like Vanessa, I want to go into more detail about this matter but am pressed for time. But for right now, I can say that the thread I started on being the 'nice' gay man and the current thread about 'breeders' comes to mind.

I want to give these things more thought- take stock- and hopefully- create more light than heat.

[Vanessa White]

This article speaks so well to what I believe Soulforce is all about. I hope that many more of you here will be able to read the article and discuss. Sure, the discussion could be enjoyable and eye opening, but it can also bring a level of understanding on an individual level. This is what I gleaned from the article:

First lesson: And this is the one quoted in keltic's post:
"Quote:
First, we learn from him that before there can be opposition to a situation of oppression, that situation must be recognized and named as oppressive. The first act of resistance is to gain clarity about one’s own situation, and unity of purpose among the oppressed. But that is not easy."

I see us be challenged with this all of the time around here. We are fragmented as a community at times about what our main focus/part of the cause should be, who should best represent it, how to organize, etc. We shoot ourselves in the foot, I believe, when we don't work together. But he is right, IT IS NOT EASY. Here, in my home area, we can't even get many of our friends in the LGBT community to come out of their homes and attend a meeting. Frustrating; but the unity is ESSENTIAL.

Dr. Raines in his article also speaks about the role of the oppressed v. the oppressor. A person's position of power or oppression "renders them morally pretentious and blind to their own ethical obtuseness."

However, he states that powerlessness, or being oppressed, can also lead to a "lack of clarity". First, we believe all of the awful things that get said about us- boy, do we see that around here- internalized homophobia at its root. Again, we harm ourselves as a group when this permeates, because we want to have the power and influence of the oppressor, and isolation begins to permeate the oppressed, because they don't want to associate with one another, other wounded humans. They want to associate with those that have the power. Clarity of purpose and goal is essential here. Could this possibly be some of what TJ was speaking to in his posts? We may never know.

In addition, to rise out of the feeling of apathy, of despair among the oppressed, there is a need for what he called "moral clarity". Righteous resistance can never be totally done away with or silenced, even though it can be stopped at times. Hold onto the guiding force of justice, which Dr. Raines states Dr. King "knew that the long arm of history bends toward justice."

In addition, once resistance makes its way through the wall of the oppressors, it brings hope, because it brings the realization that things can indeed be different, better, more just. A "new meaning and new possibility, both for themselves and those that oppress them. Resistance leads toward freedom- for the enslaved, but also for those who are lost in the pretensions of their power that they do not know themselves as enslavers." Sounds like the church, and church goers, in a way to me.

I am realizing how lengthy this is; I am only going to post one lesson at a time. Too much excellent material......

[antonyh]

I took part of the essay and outlined it for my own thinking...I'll comment later when I've had some time to meditate on this:

Lord Acton once said, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But powerlessness also corrupts. In situations of oppression both the oppressors and, often, the oppressed lose moral clarity.

The Oppressor:

The powerful lose this clarity because part of their power is the power to define their social situation. The established social explanations of an era are always the explanations of the establishment. Into these explanations the mighty build their own self-interests and biases. Thus, their view of reality is always biased. Their power renders them morally pretentious and blind to their own ethical obtuseness.

The Oppressed:

But powerlessness also can lead to lack of clarity.

a. The terrible temptation for the powerless is to believe what the oppressors say about them -- to think of themselves as “dumb,” “weak” and “lazy.”

b. The corruption of powerlessness is that the oppressed may come to envy and seek to emulate the oppressor, dreaming of someday taking the oppressor’s place.

c. When this happens a terrible silence and isolation opens up among the powerless. Dreaming of becoming like the mighty, they fear and flee the wounds of their oppressed fellows, because those wounds remind them of their own degradation.

d. The deepest and most devastating injury of oppression is that it produces mute suffering -- suffering that cannot even name its own situation, cannot cry out, cannot say how things really are, cannot protest.

Martin Luther King, Jr., knew that clarity alone can bring community among the oppressed. And clarity comes when the downtrodden protest their oppression in the name of their own dignity, deciding not to dream of becoming someone else, but to stand together with their own kind.

"Clarity comes when the downtrodden protest their oppression
in the name of their own dignity."

[Emproph]

I emphasized some of what you said here:

Originally Posted by Vanessa White

This is what I gleaned from the article:

First lesson: And this is the one quoted in keltic's post:

I see us be challenged with this all of the time around here. We are fragmented as a community at times about what our main focus/part of the cause should be, who should best represent it, how to organize, etc. We shoot ourselves in the foot, I believe, when we don't work together. But he is right, IT IS NOT EASY. Here, in my home area, we can't even get many of our friends in the LGBT community to come out of their homes and attend a meeting. Frustrating; but the unity is ESSENTIAL.

Dr. Raines in his article also speaks about the role of the oppressed v. the oppressor. A person's position of power or oppression "renders them morally pretentious and blind to their own ethical obtuseness."

However, he states that powerlessness, or being oppressed, can also lead to a "lack of clarity". First, we believe all of the awful things that get said about us- boy, do we see that around here- internalized homophobia at its root. Again, we harm ourselves as a group when this permeates, because we want to have the power and influence of the oppressor, and isolation begins to permeate the oppressed, because they don't want to associate with one another, other wounded humans. They want to associate with those that have the power. Clarity of purpose and goal is essential here. Could this possibly be some of what TJ was speaking to in his posts? We may never know.

In addition, to rise out of the feeling of apathy, of despair among the oppressed, there is a need for what he called "moral clarity".

The civil rights movement was born in, or at least organized around and in the churches. Not only do we not have that foundational premise of unity, but further complicating the matter is that our fight is essentially against a large portion of the church / organized religion.

Like you said Vanessa, the unity is essential, without it we can't even effectively start the process - that of coming to a consensus on the existence, nature, and definition of our oppression.

Add to that, the fact that finding our moral clarity is an even more challenging feat than it was for their civil rights movement, and the situation appears all that much more dire and self-defeatest.

So maybe, and this just came to me, the first part of recognizing and defining our oppression, should be just recognizing that fact. That the isolation challenges of our situation are something the civil rights movement didn't have to face in any debilitating way.

Think about the implications of that. So much of our movement is based on, and for individuals and couples feeling the full force of the oppression, without regular communal support, if at all. Of course, we have the internet, thank God, and I think that's one thing that keeps a lot of us going. It certainly does for me.

I'm pretty adept at responding to their hateful rhetoric and propaganda, to the point of arrogance. But whenever the anger starts to sink in and feel personal, I remember my friends online who feel just as frustrated and angry about it all, and it really does help. At that moment, I'm no longer alone.

So we can use the non-violence resistance civil rights movement / techniques as a template, but in our case, we need to recognize that that's not enough, and thus, we need to be ever prepared to pursue our organizational and consensus building goals in unconventional ways. This should be our first lesson.

Beyond that, recognizing our situation as oppressive is easy enough. So on to:

If the first task of resistance, then, is to see things as they really are, to stop dreaming and to stand together, the second step is to claim moral authority for one’s cause. Resisters need to proclaim the righteousness of their purpose in terms which are widely, if not universally, recognized.

I just want to share one form of an example of something that been helping me to "claim moral authority" in regard to our situation of oppression.

And I wouldn't recommend it for everyone to use necessarily, but even conceptually, I believe it is of benefit.

Like I said, our fight is essentially against a portion of the church, and "religious beliefs." Which is infinitely complicating to the public relations portion of our civil rights movement - especially and precisely because of their shrieks and howls of religious persectution in light of the very existence of our movement. Point being, the complicating factor is that we have to deal with the fact that they themselves are setting themselves up, and framing the issue, as though they are the one's being oppressed.

It's a hard charge to refute. But I've learned that it's possible.

I get so used to thinking that their perception of me is wrong, or that what they say is a lie, that the fact that they may be right, escapes me.

This is something I wrote earlier tonight (article here), and remember, I'm presenting this in the context of claiming moral authority:

Sexuality is an intrinsic part of HUMANITY. How dumb do you have to be to consider the American Counseling Association's recognition of homosexual persons as being fully human, as an attempt to give "preference for one religious belief regarding homosexuality over another?"

To claim a "religious belief" regarding homosexuality, is to claim a religious belief regarding the humanity of homosexuals. A belief that should rightfully be stigmatized - especially in the medical community!

I added emphasis there to make my point. Now this was in the context of anti-gay counselors, officially complaining that their "religious beliefs" were being stigmatized.

Here's another example from RationalWiki:
(emphasis added)

Deconstructing the Persecution Complex: What Are Individual Rights?

The misunderstanding inherent in this use of the persecution complex goes to the basic definition of the rights of the individual. While equally-situated individuals have the right to be treated equally (the antidiscrimination principle), no-one has a right to institutionalize legal discrimination against an innocent group, no matter how much they want to, and no matter what "values" this goal of discrimination is based upon. Thus, "persecution" of discriminators is justified.

Put another way, the individual has the right to do anything that does not infringe upon the rights of others.[2] Unjust discrimination infringes upon another's rights, and is thus not a right that should be valued.

Another example:

Your argument is easily turned back upon you... if a Nazi claims to be Christian and not a Nazi and says that Christianity is all about "helping white people avoid minorities"... would I not then be completely incorrect by attacking Christianity as racist? Scum of all groups will try to masquerade as others in order to try to gain acceptance of their viewpoints.

That one's a bit more convoluted, but you get the point. If someone claims "religious belief" for justification of immoral behavior, then that religious belief is immoral.

The "deeply held religious beliefs" canard is something that I think is confusing the issue for us, especially for those of us who's "deeply held beliefs," religious or otherwise, are to be non-violent at all cost.

Respecting these supremacist, and downright immoral beliefs, is one cost that I see as being unnecessarily complicating the issue. And this is something we must recognize up front.

There's no need to be insulting in registering such a rejection of another's "deeply held moral beliefs," but if those beliefs are inherently immoral to begin with, whether dressed as religious or Christian, etc., at that point, the debate is over.

It's a point of oppression that I don't think we're recognizing, or at least are not feeling comfortable recognizing enough.

We have every right, nay, obligation to condemn "religious," "Christian," "moral," and "deeply held" beliefs as being worthy of persecution, discrimination, and oppression.

And to be clear, this has nothing to do with the point in the article that was already made in regard to the oppressed wanting to become the oppressor. The motive here is to call oppression for what it is, for the sake of protecting those who are being oppressed.

My point is that it's these words themselves, and what they represent, that keeps us (partially, but significantly) feeling unnecesarily intimidated, and from fully claiming them as our own.

It's perfectly non-violent to condemn these "religious" and "Christian" positions as being NOT worthy of free expression, beyond even the Constitution, but ethically. Because our motive is that of protection, for ourselves and those like us. And their/our friends, and families.

As always, the trick is to ensure that one is condemning the position or belief, as opposed to the person holding it. Love the sinner, hate the sin, touche'.

[keltic63]

I absolutely love the discussion that this article has generated. I found the article while I was researching some concepts for an article I wanted to write for my own blog. I have just finished that article and put it up.

this terrestrial ball

I had asked some questions of some friends about this idea of the oppressor/oppressed relationship, and how they dealt with it. For now, I'm thinking there is another article/blog entry in which I will explore our personal feelings about that. the present entry uses the Raines article very much as an outline and applying it to a circumstance in which I find myself at the present time. I also believe I have a better understanding now of why it's so important to choose the path of nonviolent resistance.