No Wrong Way to Resist

There is one wrong thing you can do, and that is to criticize and dismiss an effort to do something positive simply because, in your opinion, it "is not enough." This is a chronic problem currently, and it fails to acknowledge anything other than statistically measurable effects, publicity, visibility, and savvy organization. Critics ignore the impacts on individual participants, the importance of collective purpose and strengthened solidarity, and habituation to action.

A small group of us protesting on Presidents' Day outside the courthouse of our small town.

The recent spending boycott on February 28, organized by the People's Union USA, was roundly attacked for requiring so little from participants, but considering that we have, as a broad citizenry, become complacent and perhaps lazy over the previous four years of relative calm, not demanding an intensive, personally risky act was probably the right call.

One important aspect of a boycott on purchases is anonymity. When there is the perception of risk to personal safety, the promise of invisibility is a helpful recruitment tactic. The same goes for the gathering of data by corporations and bad actors elsewhere. When you don't spend, you don't leave a digital or paper trail. Perceived vulnerability, real or not, is an enormous disincentive for engaging in protests that demand public spectacle with its potential for confrontation with counter-demonstrators and/or police violence.

The most profound impact of a buying boycott is personal. It causes you to pause your spending, and creates a window of opportunity to reflect on what you need and prioritize, and where you go to fulfull those needs and wants. It gets you to explore local alternatives to the global corporate marketplace, for example. Maybe, like sobriety, you take that one day boycott up a notch and make a habit of it, one day at a time. Extricating ourselves from the matrix of capitalism, at the scale it has become, is going to be a marathon, not a sprint, but it is something we can choose to do. What can I live without, you might ask yourself. What might I indulge in with less frequency?

One social media comment I saw claimed that not all locally-owned businesses are any better in their politics, hiring practices, responsiveness to customers, and impacts in other areas. That is definitely true, but a small business can survive only so long if word spreads that it exercises biases, tolerates or encourages bigotry, or fails to support the local community. It always pays to do your homework, ask your neighbors, and use other resources to inform your decisions on what enterprises to patronize.

Boycotts do affect the financial bottom line of the corporations targeted, but that usually takes time. There is definitely a sense of urgency now, and the critics of the one-day boycott are impatient. What we don't hear from those people are alternatives or complements to consumer boycotts. Well, one vocal critic, on a social media post, claimed that only a widespread labor strike will have any measurable effect. That exposes an awful lot of people to retaliation from their employers, at a time when unemployment benefits are no longer guaranteed. Too many are living paycheck to paycheck. Yes, a prolonged work stoppage would be very effective, but would require near total participation.

What gives me great satisfaction, even if I hear about it after the fact, are spontaneous efforts at disruption, such as overwhelming I.C.E. tip lines with bogus referrals for undocumented immigrants to target for deportation, or emailing human resources at the Office of Personnel Management to frustrate the DOGE request to supply it with five bullet points describing your job accomplishments the prior week. Such little acts also generate a great deal of much needed humor when people post their responses on social media. We need more of this kind of creative monkeywrenching.

Ideally, we need to reach the enablers of the oppressors and anti-democratic players. That means engaging or shaming CEOs and majority shareholders of the companies running the show. Call them out. Demand that shareholders dump their stock. Give these powerful people no peace. After all, they are not giving you any. Call your congresspeople, sure. Go to their town halls, if they bother holding such events. We need to up the pressure, though, maybe as a continued presence at all of their offices, all their public appearances.

I saw a photo, or perhaps a generative AI image, on social media recently that depicted a woman holding a cardboard sign. It read "I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept." This is a quote by Angela Davis, an esteemed leader in the Black Panther Party of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This resonates on many levels. I wonder if we need a twelve-step program with that mantra. I would go to the meetings, learning what actions others are taking, and trying them myself.

(Almost) Remembering Woodstock

Please understand that I was only eight years old when this most celebrated of American concerts took place in rural New York state. That is why I barely remember it, not because I was there, dropping acid....Can art be the answer to civil unrest? That is one question worth thinking about today on the 50th anniversary of Woodstock.

© Belcourt.org

I sometimes lament that I was not "of age" back in the days of the Vietnam War protests, the beginnings of the environmental movement, and other great shifts in our society. Yes, I recognize that Woodstock is either highly romanticized, or vilified for the grossly unsanitary conditions and rampant drug use, pubic sex, etc. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, and without interviewing every single spectator and participant it is unlikely we will ever get the full, accurate picture.

In the absence of social media, Woodstock represents a truly profound event, one born out of alternative print and radio media, word-of-mouth, and a longing for validation of one's anti-establishment sentiments. The commitment to attending must have been staggering in view of social and logistical obstacles. It may be the shining pinnacle of rock-and-roll music, too, validating the genre as a tool for culture change, encouraging collaborations, and energizing youth. To say that the concert set the stage for a generational metamorphosis might be an understatement....or an overstatement.

I imagine that upon arrival in that farm field, many were overwhelmed to find so many others, from far-flung points of origin, sharing their anxiety over the war, pollution, and other pressing problems. It took mobilization to get people there, and the event itself was an engine that catalyzed further action. It was both an opportunity to relax, take a breath, celebrate life, and also comprehend the magnitude of the issues before our country.

It had to be a comfort and relief to be surrounded by those of like mind, with a unity of purpose. Where are those opportunities today? The answer in this digital age is that they are mostly virtual. Those who attend marches and other public demonstrations and protests are proxies for a vastly larger village. Not everyone can afford an airline ticket (or even a bus ticket) to Washington, DC to participate in person. Some, perhaps many, fear that they would be met with hostile opposition from those who violently endorse continued racism, the proliferation of personal weapons of mass destruction, and other issues that continue to erode the fabric of our society.

Would it help to have a new version of Woodstock (not a lame reunion event) today? Is art the answer to our divide? Few performers, I wager, would take the risk that those musicians of the late 1960s did. Record producers were "the establishment," and in many ways still are. They answer to wealthy investors like any other corporation, and you rock that boat at the risk of being blacklisted. Furthermore, there are few high profile voices today that carry enough impact. Pink and Lady Gaga carry the torch for the disenfranchised, but at a deeply personal level, the level of intimate relationships be they familial or otherwise. They express lyrically an intolerance for abusive relationships, not the abuse of entire races, immigrants, and other categories of humanity. Where are the likes of Joni Mitchell?

The view from here, behind my computer monitor and keyboard, is one of utter frustration. Our inertia has us isolated physically, connected virtually, and strung out in terms of the issues that captivate us. It is an overwhelming prospect to muster the energy to break out of normal routines, to risk shaming, insults, loss of friendships, and exile in pursuit of what we know is right and just. The thing is, we don't consider the prospect of what the audience at Woodstock must have embraced: a new community, shared experiences, renewed energy, and personal validation. Peace out.

A Singular "Protest"

© inusanews.com

I was hoping I could refrain from making any comment on the Colin Kaepernick incident, whereby he refused to cooperate for the national anthem before a pre-season football game last week. It is, to my mind, a relatively trivial blip on the socio-political seismograph, but there have been too many ill-conceived attempts to either criticize or defend the quarterback's stand (or lack thereof) for me to ignore.

First of all, let me acknowledge his right of refusal to participate in a patriotic exercise. Does he have the personal authority to do that? Of course he does, it is a constitutionally-guaranteed act of free speech. Heck, these days I, myself, find the Star-spangled banner ringing at least a little bit hollow considering how the culture of this nation has degenerated. Home of the brave? We're afraid of everything, and everyone. Back to Kaepernick. Do I think his (in)action had anything to do with something larger than himself? Hell, no.

One man sitting out a pre-game ritual does not in any way constitute a protest. Recruit all of your teammates to do likewise? Now you have a protest. Furthermore, you have leadership, someone courageous enough to incite others to follow suit in a non-violent act of defiance. Kaepernick clearly wants to have nothing to do with anything "team." So, he comes off as a pouting little boy, demoralized that he is no longer the starter at his position, and desperate for any publicity, good or bad. I am almost willing to bet that the whole protest angle was an afterthought. He was sulking, but suddenly recalled a way he could turn a purely selfish act into something face-saving. Is that too cynical?

Wait, you say, aren't there other examples where a single individual forced change, or demonstrated courage that initiated a chain of events by others? What about that dude who stood in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989? Look at the context. That was during a sustained mass protest by students in China. It was also an act that had strong potential for life-and-death consequences. China does not have the same set of freedoms the U.S. does, and that man was going to face some kind of very harsh punishment.

Rosa Parks, there's a real heroine, no.? I agree. What made her special is that she was no one special until she did what she did; and she likewise had more to fear than (non-existent) social media rants. A lot more. Like lynching, for example. You simply cannot compare a safe exercise in disagreement with social norms, like sitting out the national anthem, with actions that actually violate current law, let alone cultural permissions.

So, yes, you have the right to stand down from the Star-Spangled Banner, burn the flag, and even spout hate as so many have from the safety of their keyboards and snarkphones. Just be aware that the true heroes of the world will quietly conclude that you are being intolerably lame, if not simply reinforcing the attitudes already directed at those of your kind, however we lump each other these days.

Sit down if you must, speak up as you should, but get over yourself. Also, I strongly recommend that "Whites" and "Coloreds" should only be used when referring to laundry. Let's top airing the dirty stuff, shall we? We face too many critical issues to waste time with one person's ego.

The Malheur Incident

Imagine my dismay to learn, while trying to spend quality time with my spouse's family, that one of my favorite places on the planet is being occupied by an armed militia in apparent retaliation for a perceived unjust jury sentence for ranchers convicted of arson. There is so much conflicting information, and such visceral reaction to this incident, that it is difficult to know where to start. I can only speak for myself, so here it goes.

© Bev Wigney

I have visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge a handful of times. It is located in extreme southeast Oregon, and is so remote that it is a long haul from anywhere. The Center Patrol Road is just about guaranteed to give you a flat tire every time you drive it. Still, it is worth the effort and trouble to go. The birds and other wildlife are astounding in their diversity and abundance.

Malheur NWR hosts a wide variety of birds like White-faced Ibis and Great Egret© Bev Wigney

My gut-level reaction to hearing of the takeover of the (at the time vacant) headquarters building was "Get the hell off of my refuge!" It is, of course, your refuge, too, but thanks to this "protest," the refuge is closed until further notice. You are being deprived of your right to visit a public facility paid for with your tax dollars.

Refuge headquarters contains instructive dioramas like this one....© Bev Wigney

That, I believe, is the essence of this whole conflict. The protest is selfishly motivated, hostile, and pits private interests against the public good. This is not what I would classify as domestic terrorism, yet, but there are better ways to publicly appeal a court verdict, if that is what this is really about, and certainly better venues. This is only the tip of the iceberg, though.

....and fragile, historically important collections like these eggs© Bev Wigney

The uneasy truce between the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and other federal agencies and private landowners is our current American model for averting what is known as the "tragedy of the commons." This principle dates back perhaps to Aristotle, but certainly to English economist William Forster Lloyd in 1833. His pamphlet was the genesis of the recognition of the potential for abuse of common resources. It was ecologist Garrett Hardin who popularized the term "tragedy of the commons" in 1968 in his essay of that title in the journal Science.

The gist of the argument is that when access to a common resource, such as a cattle pasture, is granted to several stakeholders, each person will act in their own best, short-term interests, such as increasing the number of their own herd. This leads inexorably to the deterioration of that resource.

It can be argued that the leasing of federal lands to ranchers for cattle grazing has prevented irreparable damage to rangeland as a whole by expanding the acreage available for grazing. This is not without consequence, naturally, and success hinges on the cooperation of lessees in the proper, agreed-upon management of the resource.

Violation of laws regarding burning of invasive plants led to the charge of arson when a burn on private land expanded into public land. That much seems to be acknowledged by both parties involved here. What happened in the aftermath is debatable. Here is one side's argument. I would hesitate to call the occupation of refuge headquarters "civil disobedience." It is anything but civil, especially when guns are involved.

It should be noted that your taxes dollars also subsidize the grazing of privately-owned cattle on public land....and at a fraction of the cost a private landowner would charge for grazing. See this story for more about the great deals ranchers get as part of our "socialist" government practices.

The folks holed up in the refuge headquarters building are not terrorists. They are mostly whining cry-babies with guns who think they are getting a raw deal when in fact the feds bend over backwards to appease them. They are hopelessly confusing their "rights" with the privilege of using federal lands for private gain. Yes, ranching is a risky business, but a minority of ranchers do not wish to assume any risk. It is telling that not one of the local communities near the refuge has come out in unanimous support of what is happening. Those engaged in this misguided occupation are clearly extremists.

© Bev Wigney

Do governments have all the answers when it comes to managing resources like rangeland? Of course not. But this kind of behavior threatens to backfire. I can see a day when an incident like this results in the revocation of grazing permits for individuals who participate in unlawful protests; repossession of equipment purchased with government loans; and even more "aggressive" government expansion of public lands as these protestors accuse the feds of doing already. Frankly, at this point, I'd be all for it.