• Communication commission discussion

  • Fwd: [WSMDiscuss] Fwd: Interesting critique from centrally within XR - Extinction Rebellion Re: Extinction Rebellion and the benefits of thinking harder about movements

    from bazril on Oct 30, 2019 09:42 AM
    Ref: Learning as we move forward!
    Azril
    
    Tuesday, October 29, 2019
    
    *Climate in movement…, Movements in movement… *
    
    [This long but very self-critical essay is taken from an extensive, and
    ongoing, critical discussion on movements and their contradictions on the
    ‘Social Movements’ (as in ‘International forum for discussion and
    information on social movements’) listserve, triggered by a blog that
    Laurence Cox posted there on XR (where he is list admin) :
    
    *Extinction Rebellion : We Need To Talk About The Future*
    
    Sam J Knights
    
                Thanks Laurence, and thanks Gordon Asher for this post.
    
                JS
    
    fwd
    
    Begin forwarded message:
    
    *From: *Gordon Asher <gordonasher@...>
    *Subject: **Re: Interesting critique from centrally within XR - Extinction
    Rebellion Re: Extinction Rebellion and the benefits of thinking harder
    about movements*
    *Date: *October 29, 2019 at 8:24:01 PM EDT
    *To: *SOCIAL-MOVEMENTS@...
    *Reply-To: *International forum for discussion and information on social
    movements <SOCIAL-MOVEMENTS@...>
    
    It's a really interesting (and admirable?) piece of critical
    self-reflection (returning to a point Laurence and others have made, for
    the need for such) from someone very centrally involved, - I think?
    
    
    *Extinction Rebellion: We Need To Talk About The Future*
    Sam J Knights
    <https://medium.com/@...?source=post_page-----95459aa4d4e0---------------------->
    Oct 23
    <https://medium.com/@.../extinction-rebellion-we-need-to-talk-about-the-future-95459aa4d4e0?source=post_page-----95459aa4d4e0---------------------->
    https://medium.com/@.../extinction-rebellion-we-need-to-talk-about-the-future-95459aa4d4e0
    
    *Dear everyone.*
    
    This is a love letter to Extinction Rebellion.
    
    A movement that I devoted the last year of my life to. Lost jobs over. Got
    arrested with. Put everything on hold for. A movement that I believed in. A
    movement that believed in me. A movement that changed the debate. And that
    now needs to change.
    
    It is also a letter addressed to those who have criticised us. An apology.
    A response. And, ultimately, an invitation.
    
    I know that some of my friends will find this letter far too critical.
    Others will find it far too lenient. Either way, I don’t really mind. I
    hope, ultimately, it is honest. I am not writing it to appease or to
    placate anybody. Both sides are right about some things, and both sides are
    wrong about others.
    
    But I hope we can agree on one thing. This year has changed everything.
    
    The School Strikes. The Sunrise Movement. Zero Hour. The minority world has
    finally woken up to something the majority world has been trying to tell us
    for decades. The world is on fire. People are dying. Children are starving.
    The fossil fuel companies are refusing to change. And we need to fight back.
    
    In April, the United Kingdom became the first country to declare a climate
    emergency, following a fortnight of continuous protest from Extinction
    Rebellion. A mass campaign of non-violent civil disobedience which saw
    roads blocked, roundabouts occupied, and bridges transformed into gardens.
    
    It was, more than anything, a challenge. A challenge to the current system.
    A warning to our politicians and to our leaders that if they could not
    respond to the climate crisis with the seriousness and the scale it demands
    — if they were not prepared to imagine a future without death or
    destruction, without power or oppression — then we would. Me and you. The
    ordinary people.
    
    Last month, the Labour Party made the first step towards answering this
    call for climate and ecological justice. It still has a very long way to
    go, but the changes in policy are incredibly encouraging. At its annual
    conference in Brighton, party members and trade unions worked hand in hand
    to pass the most radical and progressive policy to have ever been tabled:
    the Green New Deal. If enacted, this would mean the public ownership of
    major industries, a radical redistribution of wealth, the repeal of all
    anti-union laws, and a net zero emissions target of 2030.
    
    A month later and Extinction Rebellion held its October Rebellion in
    London. For a huge number of different reasons, it did not have the impact
    of our protests in April. People knew what to expect this time round. Some
    of our actions were breathtakingly beautiful. Some of our actions were
    painfully idiotic. Our protests were banned. Our sites were cleared. It was
    a disappointing end to the fortnight.
    
    Of course, it was by no means a failure. In less than a year, we had staged
    two of the largest civil disobedience events in the history of the United
    Kingdom. And, in October, we had grown once again. More people came down to
    the sites and more people stayed to defend them. But there was no pink boat
    in Oxford Circus. No beautiful garden bridge. And something definitely felt
    different.
    
    At the same, we were facing enormous critique from all sides. Internally,
    we were also engaged in a fierce and passionate debate about the future of
    our movement. In Extinction Rebellion, we have always called for system
    change. We have always talked about freedom, equality, and solidarity. But
    many of us now think we need to be more specific. We want Extinction
    Rebellion to become proactive in its anti-racism. We want the movement to
    develop a deeper analysis of capital and control, and to acknowledge more
    publicly the crises of capitalism and colonialism that are — in no small
    part — responsible for this crisis.
    
    The School Strikes Movement and Extinction Rebellion have changed the way
    that we in the minority world think about the climate and ecological
    emergency. Inside every industry and every institution there are now
    hundreds of people who have been persuaded to do something. The British
    public consider climate change more important now than they ever have and
    the Labour Party has one of the most progressive and ambitious policies of
    any party in Europe.
    
    This year, the debate changed. And we have to change with it.
    
    As activists, we spend our lives thinking about how best to communicate
    with the outside world. We write articles trying to win people over. We
    give speeches trying to persuade people we are right. We go into your
    workplaces and your community centres. We organise. We mobilise. We hope we
    cut through.
    
    In doing so, we are sometimes in danger of neglecting one another. Because
    we find those conversations even more difficult, don’t we? Because,
    ultimately, we all have very different visions of the future, different
    experiences of the past, and different understandings of the present.
    Because what’s the point in talking, anyway, when the ice caps are melting,
    and the oceans are rising, and people are being murdered in our rainforests?
    
    But talking to one another is important. And, right now, there is a very
    important question that we all need to discuss:
    
    *Do we continue with Extinction Rebellion? Or is it time for something new?*
    
    It pains me to write those words.
    
    I joined Extinction Rebellion a year ago. I know that doesn’t sound like a
    very long time, but the movement was still in its infancy then. In fact, we
    hadn’t even started. We organised our first protest on the 31st October
    2018 and, to my surprise, over a thousand people turned up. Amongst them
    was a fifteen year old girl named Greta Thunberg, who had come all the way
    from Sweden in an electric car with her dad. In the media, we were
    supported by Vandana Shiva, Noam Chomsky and the former Archbishop of
    Canterbury Rowan Williams.
    
    Since then, I have held a number of different roles within the movement. I
    have worked in the media and messaging team, the political strategy team,
    and — when it was functioning — the rapid response team. I love this
    movement with all my heart. Our activists are, without exception, some of
    the kindest, most thoughtful, and most passionate people I have ever met.
    
    Whilst we may disagree on some issues, I want to acknowledge that nothing I
    write here is personal. Mass movements do not operate like reformist
    pressure groups. We do not have our opinions handed down to us from on
    high. Disagreement is natural. In fact, disagreement is essential. In this
    case, I simply have a difference of opinion.
    
    For the last month, the movement has been engaged in a fierce debate over
    our collective future and it will, I am sure, continue this debate in the
    weeks and the months to come. I hope more people can join. I hope more
    people can join and push to be better. Because, right now, Extinction
    Rebellion really needs to change. And if it can’t change, it is finished.
    
    Unfortunately, I don’t think I can be a part of that change.
    
    The last year has been one of the best years of my life. But it has also
    been one of the worst. I was arrested at the very start of this year and
    the trial has only just concluded, eight months later. In the meantime, I
    have lost work and been targeted by the police. I am thinking about climate
    change the moment I wake up to the moment I go to sleep and the effect on
    my mental health has been really damaging. I really need a break.
    
    It is one of those old ironies of climate activism: that in fighting for a
    more sustainable way of life, we are often forced to live a totally
    unsustainable existence. I do not want to burn out completely. So I am
    taking some time now in order to be more useful in the future. Perhaps I
    will come back to Extinction Rebellion. I don’t really know.
    
    But I still feel guilty for leaving. And so I wanted to say something
    before I do.
    
    *The critiques of Extinction Rebellion are right.*
    
    I don’t mean the right wing think tanks that call us terrorists. Or the
    tabloid papers that call us hypocrites. Or the conservative columnists who
    refuse to even engage with the science. Obviously, they are all batshit. We
    know that. We can discount them and we can move on.
    
    But the critiques we have received from the left. Not all of them, of
    course. But most of them. Most of them are right. In their reasoning. In
    their analysis. In how we need to change.
    
    If Extinction Rebellion is going to be a long-term political project, then
    it needs to put climate and ecological justice at the heart of everything
    it does. It needs to proactively defend migrant rights and to stand in
    solidarity with those on the frontlines of this crisis. It needs to call
    for reparations and for further conversations around climate debt, land
    rights, and ecocide. It needs to better articulate how we extend and reform
    our broken democracy. It needs to reimagine our global finance system and,
    in doing so, provide a nuanced critique of our current economic system. It
    needs to understand how the climate crisis intersects with issues of race,
    class, gender, and sexuality. It needs to stop putting out such stupid
    messages about how prison is lovely, and being arrested is fun, and the
    police are all great. This is the most important social justice struggle of
    all our lives. And we have to start acting like it.
    
    Having said that, I also recognise the scale of this challenge.
    
    The role of the activist is to reimagine the world. We need to rewild the
    world, but first we need to rewild the imagination. We must attempt to
    articulate our dreams for the future and, in doing so, we must acknowledge
    that those dreams do not always come fully formed. That process is long and
    it is arduous. Ultimately, we need to take everyone with us. With love and
    with empathy. With a generosity of spirit.
    
    Extinction Rebellion needs to change. But anybody who thinks that change
    can happen overnight is taking you for a fool. Meaningful solidarity and
    effective political education do not happen in the blink of an eye. The
    work ahead is going to be slow. It is going to take time. It is going to be
    hard.
    
    One of the biggest questions we now face is how that deeper, slower, more
    vital work is able to still take place within an emergency response to the
    climate crisis. The environmental movement has always been a balance
    between running too fast and walking too slow. Our slogans read: “act now”,
    “tell the truth”, and “we’re running out of time”. But how are we meant to
    “tell the truth” if we never stop to consider it? To check our own
    privilege and to listen to the experiences of others?
    
    We cannot continue to think of these two things as contradictory, or as
    somehow in competition. Understanding the climate crisis and imagining a
    more progressive future goes hand in hand with the need to act now. One
    influences the other. Indeed, it enriches our activism. It makes us better.
    
    *So, let’s talk about the movement today.*
    
    Mass movements are messy. It’s the best thing about them and it’s the worst
    thing about them.
    
    Extinction Rebellion is a decentralised mass movement made up of thousands
    of different people. Academics, politicians, schoolchildren, scientists,
    grandparents, doctors, nurses, postmen, teachers, lawyers, priests, rabbis.
    There are now Extinction Rebellion chapters in over sixty different
    countries and in every continent except for Antarctica. We all act
    autonomously. There is no central line of command. There are no leaders.
    And our critics often forget that.
    
    There is no denying that the April rebellion managed to alter the public
    perception of what is and what is not possible, not only in the wider green
    movement but in every activist group up and down the country. In every
    town, street, and home. Together, we created a space for debate. We proved
    that non-violent civil disobedience works and, in doing so, we created
    space not only in a figurative sense, but also in a very literal one.
    
    Occupying five iconic locations in central London, we transformed the
    streets of the city into public stages on which democracy could flourish.
    We held talks, debates, rallies, assemblies, performances, gigs, poetry
    readings, and everything in between. We talked about economics, politics,
    science, race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, capitalism, colonialism,
    power, growth, degrowth, protest law, ecocide, reparations, climate debt,
    anarchism, socialism, democracy. We talked about everything we could with
    everyone we knew. We dreamt together. We attempted to imagine the future.
    
    Of course, this work was not done alone. It worked alongside other emerging
    movements, like the School Strike movement in Europe and the Sunrise
    Movement in America. It learnt from the justice movements that preceded it
    and it paid homage to activists in the majority world. It learnt from the
    people on the frontlines of this crisis who have been leading this movement
    for decades and regard us — quite rightly — as relative newcomers. We often
    talk in the climate movement of the disproportionate effect we in the
    minority world have had on the majority world. We are responsible for the
    vast majority of carbon emissions, and yet it is people in the countries
    least responsible for this crisis that are feeling the effects of it most.
    But we talk less about the disproportionate response of our activists. For
    too long we have allowed indigenous communities and activist groups in the
    Global South to do the vast majority of our resistance work for us, before
    we then step in at the last moment and claim all the credit.
    
    Extinction Rebellion has certainly fallen into this trap. Some of the
    people in our movement have allowed their egos to run away with them. But I
    think that is changing. And I think it will continue to change, for the
    better. The last week saw protests in more than sixty cities across the
    world, from Mumbai to Cape Town, Dublin to New York, Banjul to Islamabad.
    Every iteration of this movement is different to the next. A group in
    Ghana, for example, cannot use the same tactics to a group in France. Of
    course, the core essence of the movement remains the same. But everything
    else is able to change. In fact, the ability to change, and change quickly,
    is a key part of our success.
    
    Extinction Rebellion changes with every new person that joins us. Our
    decentralised structure means that so long as you are abiding by our key
    values and principles, you can start organising an action or planning a
    protest or writing a speech without seeking permission or having to be
    mandated to do so.
    
    This is what allowed us to grow so rapidly. It encouraged a huge diversity
    of tactics to naturally emerge as people felt empowered to take action in
    whatever way that made sense to them. It meant we worked quickly and never
    allowed ourselves time to get stuck. For those of us in the central office,
    we knew things were working not when we had organised everything ourselves
    — but when things started happening that we didn’t know anything about.
    
    Of course, there are also various problems with this organising model that
    warrant a much longer conversation. A structure that relies on empowering
    people to go out and act often then struggles with its own internal
    decision making. It also struggles to mitigate for power and to sensitively
    respond to questions of privilege or conflict.
    
    *It also means that occasionally people do something stupid. Like send
    flowers to a police station. Or jump on top of a train.*
    
    I am, by the way, not blaming individual people for these actions. Although
    individuals do need to take a portion of the blame, these mistakes cannot
    be dismissed as simply accidental. They are part of our movement. They are
    manifestations of an idea. Or a tactic. Or evidence of our ignorance.
    
    Like all good movements, we need to look at them and we need to learn from
    them.
    
    The infamous train action is, I think, a good case study in the limits of
    decentralised activism. It was planned by a tiny faction of the movement,
    opposed by the overwhelming majority of our activists, and yet it was still
    allowed to happen under the banner of Extinction Rebellion. It soaked up
    all the media coverage that day, distracting from more thoughtful actions
    and altering the public perception of our protests. Yet it was only about
    ten or fifteen people who were ever convinced it would work.
    
    It is worth saying that this same group tried to do the exact same thing
    during the April rebellion. At the time, we still had a more hierarchical
    way of organising; we established a body that had oversight over the entire
    rebellion called the Rapid Response Team, which was supposedly
    representatives from different subgroups across the organisation but was
    basically just fifteen people from the central team. I was in the meeting
    when this action was finally put to bed and I can tell you that had a
    couple of us not threatened to publicly quit if this action took place,
    then it would have happened in April.
    
    There are certain groups in Extinction Rebellion who believe that economic
    disruption is the only strategy worth pursuing. This was deeply ingrained
    in the genesis of the movement and a strategic view that many of the
    original members cannot be dissuaded of. They are intent on disrupting
    transport networks and getting people arrested en masse . This view is
    sometimes presented as the main view of Extinction Rebellion, because it is
    loudly championed in the media by some of the founders, but in fact it is
    now a relatively fringe position. Most activists have a much more nuanced
    theory of change, one that relies on a vast multitude of tactics.
    
    *We need to find different structures if we are to achieve different
    victories.*
    
    In a decentralised mass movement, those with the loudest voices reign
    supreme. The challenge therefore is to build a progressive movement that
    does not fall prey to these voices.
    
    I think the time is now right for us to ditch our undemocratic ways of
    working. Our movement has been exceptionally efficient in mobilising
    thousands of people, but now it needs to think long and hard about the
    principle of accountability. At the present moment, there is no
    accountability whatsoever.
    
    We need to think very carefully about what our purpose is going forward and
    what we hope to achieve. When I was arrested in February for peacefully
    protesting outside of an oil and gas conference, I had organised the action
    on my own terms. I am, to be perfectly honest, not that prepared to get
    arrested for sitting in the middle of a road. I see the necessity of it and
    I admire those who do it, but personally I wanted to do something that was
    more significant and sent out a clearer political message. The
    psychological strain of being arrested, then charged, and finally having to
    stand trial is immense. As a young person, I am not going to make that
    sacrifice on a whim. The action I organised was different. It was a
    targeted protest with a very specific purpose. It had messaging around the
    neo-colonial practises of fossil fuel companies in Africa.
    
    In other words: if I was going to rebel, I wanted to do it on my own terms.
    
    
    Extinction Rebellion has always relied on symbolic actions to build the
    movement. When we first started, we mobilised people by picking politically
    astute targets, dominating the news coverage, and then finding ways in
    which people could be instantly enfolded into the group. This is something,
    to be blunt, most activist groups are not very good at. With an emboldened
    movement, we then turned our attention to mass participation actions which
    were designed to maximise economic disruption. Some of these worked better
    than others. Most, to analyse them objectively, failed on our own terms:
    they did not cause much economic disruption and they did not hold our
    vision either. But they succeeded where others have not: they brought
    people in.
    
    With every new activist comes a new theory of change. They multiply. They
    coexist. They are not particularly easy to pin down.
    
    It is not often acknowledged that those of us at the heart of Extinction
    Rebellion are generally a lot more radical than the people who support us.
    In the same way, the wider movement is often more cautious or more liberal
    than the people in the central team. There are people who think the word
    “rebellion” is a neat rhetorical flourish, and those of us who think it is
    absolutely essential.
    
    *What attracted me to Extinction Rebellion was the call for system change.*
    
    Contrary to what some commentators would have you believe, Extinction
    Rebellion was pretty much the only group in 2018 that had a systemic
    critique of the climate crisis and was prepared to shout about it. Of
    course, there were and are other groups. But I think it is worth being
    honest here: their message did not cut through and it was not matched with
    the same drive and ambition for action. Crucially, Extinction Rebellion
    also has the first step to a rational and coherent solution: non-violent
    civil disobedience on a scale we had never seen before.
    
    I think the criticisms of Extinction Rebellion for being too liberal or
    lacking in any class analysis are largely overblown. Extinction Rebellion
    is, after all, a natural successor of the Occupy movement. I am always
    surprised by how infrequently this connection is made. Most of the
    coordinators of Extinction Rebellion were involved in Occupy. I wish we
    talked about this more. I wish we had learnt from it more. But they do have
    a good analysis of capital and control. Don’t get me wrong, the messaging
    still needs to improve a lot. But we have been very clear about the need
    for system change. In a recent report for Policy Exchange, we were
    described as “an anti-capitalist movement that envisages no possible
    accommodation with a free market economy”. I was singled out, as were some
    of my friends, for our class based analysis of the current situation.
    
    In the October rebellion, the police banned all Extinction Rebellion
    activity — in a move we do not yet know was legal — after we disrupted the
    financial district with a series of roadblocks. We have consistently
    challenged the rich and the powerful and been targeted as a result. If the
    police response was unlawful, it would not be the first time. Two months
    ago, I was banned by the police from the Labour Party Conference, despite
    having no criminal record whatsoever and being an elected delegate to
    conference. The police later admitted they had behaved incorrectly.
    
    We have to remember that meaningful resistance to the current system will
    always be suppressed by a violent and censorious state. Our critiques of
    capitalism have brought us into direct contact with the violence of the
    state. But we cannot let this dissuade us from doing so. In fact, in a
    strange sort of way, it is a sign that our protests our working. It is
    imperative that at the heart of the movement we have a coherent critique of
    the current economic model and — most importantly — an idea of what a
    greener and more sustainable economics looks like.
    
    It is also important to acknowledge our own privilege when talking about
    class. The right-wing have consistently attacked Extinction Rebellion for
    being a “middle class” movement. It is true that many of the people who
    protest with Extinction Rebellion are middle class, as many people in the
    wider green movement are. This needs to change. But the central team is not
    overwhelmingly middle class and neither in fact are the founders. The
    problem is our messaging. Our messaging appeals to a certain type of
    person, whilst inadvertently excluding others. Thus, we are not mobilising
    people in the deprived areas of London, we are mobilising largely middle
    class people who live in the countryside. It cannot be this way round. We
    need to be listening to the working class and educating the middle class.
    Not trying to run before we can walk.
    
    However, it is also worth applying some context. Extinction Rebellion has
    been very successful at mobilising a huge number of different people very
    quickly; the first team I ever led had people who had just quit their
    lucrative jobs in the city and people who were coming to the office in
    between appointments at the job centre. To be blunt, many of the activist
    groups that routinely criticise Extinction Rebellion are not as inclusive
    or as diverse. Many of them are run by Oxbridge educated activists who
    operate in a particular way and communicate with a specific vocabulary. I
    have always felt at home in these groups, but we cannot pretend that
    everyone does. Extinction Rebellion has not been successful in mobilising
    the working class, but neither has anyone else. It is important we all
    acknowledge that.
    
    I am a member of the Labour Party and I have been since Jeremy Corbyn
    became leader in 2015. My politics have always been rooted in class
    struggle and so has my climate activism. It is, of course, true that not
    everyone in Extinction Rebellion shares my politics. People are attracted
    to this movement for many different reasons — we need to hang onto this
    ability to mobilise people and bring people together, carefully and
    compassionately, on a journey towards class consciousness. How the climate
    movement talks about class is one of the most important conversations that
    we all need to have in the weeks and months ahead.
    
    We should, of course, never shy away from talking about system change.
    
    Extinction Rebellion is based on revolutionary modes of activism. It
    aspires to peaceful revolution, not in the conventional sense of the word,
    but in a deeper, more reflective, and more empathetic way. We are not set
    up to be a reformist activist group. We want to transform every aspect of
    our society. And we believe in the people — in the power of ordinary people
    like you and me — to do that for ourselves.
    
    In transferring to the second phase of Extinction Rebellion we must not
    lose the radical heart of our movement.
    
    Non-violent civil disobedience is one of the most important tools in the
    struggle for climate justice. Indeed, it has been one of the most important
    tools in the struggle for justice all across the world — from the civil
    rights movement to the suffragettes. In recent weeks, I have seen people
    argue that all forms of disruption are wrong. Some of these arguments have
    become frankly surreal. In an unequal and unjust world, modes of resistance
    will obviously be complicated and compromised by the reality of organising.
    But the answer is not to ditch civil disobedience, it is to do civil
    disobedience better.
    
    However, we should not get confused between revolutionary tactics that work
    and revolutionary tactics that do not. Much of the research that originally
    underpinned our organising is based on revolutions and rebellions under
    repressive regimes and dictatorships. Whilst there certainly are some wider
    lessons to be learnt here, we would be foolish to think they can be easily
    transposed to a different political context. Our arrest strategy is deeply
    flawed. As I have said already, it has in fact been a relatively fringe
    position for a while now. But we have not been able to articulate what our
    new strategy is, if in fact we have one.
    
    We also have to acknowledge the huge criticism our past strategies have
    received. In particular, much of this criticism has come from people of
    colour. And rightly so.
    
    *So, let’s talk about race.*
    
    Extinction Rebellion has a race problem.
    
    In fact, most activist groups do. The green movement especially. But, just
    because this problem is not particular to us, it is absolutely never
    something we should be complacent about. Indeed, we have to put the
    struggle for racial equality at the heart of everything we do.
    
    In 2015, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth described the climate
    movement as “a white middle class ghetto”. Study after study has revealed
    the shocking lack of diversity within climate NGOs and climate justice
    organisations. Of course, there are some notable exceptions and some good
    progress has been made over the last decade. But it should never have been
    like this in the first place. Climate change is a racialised crisis. To
    fail to recognise that is tantamount to white supremacy.
    
    Anyone who tells you that this is a problem solely of Extinction Rebellion
    knows nothing about the history of the climate movement in the United
    Kingdom. But that does not absolve Extinction Rebellion of its complete and
    utter failure to engage with issues of race. In fact, it makes it all the
    more damning. This is one of the most important issues in the British
    climate movement and our voice has been notably absent.
    
    Again, it is worth pointing out where our critics have sometimes simplified
    their criticism. There are many people of colour in organising roles across
    the movement. I remember talking to one of our most active coordinators
    about this last year, when these criticisms were first made. She said:
    “when they say there are no black people in the movement, they are the
    people who are whitewashing my contribution as a black woman, they are the
    people not recognising my leadership”.
    
    But there is a big difference between having black people in your movement
    and being proactively antiracist in everything you do.
    
    When I first joined Extinction Rebellion, I was told not to talk about
    capitalism or colonialism on our social media accounts. Obviously, I still
    did — but the advice did surprise me. The logic was that it put people off
    and that we should be utilising a more universal and accessible rhetoric.
    Obviously, what constitutes as universal is in itself a racialised
    decision. And if you do not talk about power and privilege, then you are
    making a political decision to direct your messaging towards some groups at
    the exclusion of others. It is worth saying, for the record, that this
    advice rarely came from people within the media team itself. It was from
    coordinators in other parts of the organisation and couched in terms of
    strategy and identity.
    
    I have also witnessed the exclusion of people of colour from activist
    spaces. Recently, a young woman of colour had to leave an organising group
    after she shared her experiences of racism within the environmental
    movement and was told whether she, not the people who had made her feel
    unwelcome, should consider her place in the movement. Censorship on this
    level is not only a form of exclusion, it is a form of violence. I don’t
    think these attitudes are prevalent in Extinction Rebellion, but they
    certainly are there. And at the moment we do not have the procedures or the
    structures to deal with them. This needs to change.
    
    Last April, my friend Farhana and I coordinated our political negotiation
    strategy. This involved constructing a campaign that we hoped would force
    politicians to meet us and ultimately end in the UK Parliament declaring a
    climate and ecological emergency. In the end, our strategy was successful —
    the day after we met with Michael Gove and John McDonnell, the United
    Kingdom became the first country to declare a climate emergency. It remains
    the largest victory that Extinction Rebellion can legitimately claim.
    
    But my leadership (as a young person) and Farhana’s leadership (as a person
    of colour) was routinely challenged. Farhana is one of the most
    knowledgeable and experienced people in Extinction Rebellion; she is a
    former lead author of the IPCC and has been working in the UN for decades.
    The fact that someone like her quit her job to join us should be a story we
    champion, not somebody we marginalise. During the April rebellion, Farhana
    and I were seen as political reformers merely for meeting with politicians,
    as we were mandated to do. A conflict resolution process was triggered
    against us and we were also the subject of an open petition which called
    for Farhana to be thrown out of the movement. There is no doubt in my mind
    that much of this distrust, whether conscious or not, was borne of racism.
    
    Everyone — particularly those of us on the left who purport to stand up for
    justice — has a responsibility to decolonise our thinking, our theory, and
    our activist practises.
    
    Some of us have been talking about climate justice from the very beginning.
    It is not true that there has been no work done on climate justice issues,
    or to advance this strategy in the wider movement. Extinction Rebellion
    Youth have worked very closely with Extinction Rebellion’s International
    Solidarity Network to raise the voices of the Global South and to stand in
    solidarity with the indigenous struggle. Many of the people joining now
    have a much better political analysis and are helping to change and reshape
    the movement in their own image. Similarly, local groups tend to be better
    at talking about climate justice. And maybe it was best summed up by
    Extinction Rebellion Scotland, who brought a big banner to the October
    Rebellion which simply read: “Decolonise XR”.
    
    Generally, the problem is not that there aren’t people talking about
    climate justice within Extinction Rebellion, because there are. The problem
    is that climate justice is not deeply imbedded into the values and
    principles of the movement.
    
    
    At the October Rebellion, a site called the Global Justice Rebellion called
    for the addition of a fourth demand focused on climate and ecological
    justice, loosely based on the fourth demand of Extinction Rebellion in the
    US. This important site was organised by a large coalition of groups,
    including many groups formally affiliated with Extinction Rebellion. This
    fourth demand should now be formally adopted by Extinction Rebellion in the
    United Kingdom. But climate justice cannot just be something we tack on at
    the end of our demands, like an afterthought. It has to be deeply imbedded
    in everything we do.
    
    The messaging around arrests have proved particularly problematic. In part,
    this criticism has focused around the strategy of mass arrests and here we
    have to recognise that our experiences of the justice system are always
    going to be different. Earlier this year, we wrote in the Extinction
    Rebellion handbook: “Extinction Rebellion is clear that the police continue
    to be structurally racist, unjust and violent, particularly towards
    oppressed groups”. We have not done enough to mitigate or to protect
    ourselves against that.
    
    As with all of these critiques, the reaction can of course be overblown.
    Martin Luther King understood well the tactic of mass arrests. In Alabama,
    the civil rights movement won one of its most significant victories when it
    decided to fill the prisons with protestors. In 1963, six hundred children
    were arrested in a move that many other civil rights leaders felt deeply
    uncomfortable about. Thousands of black men and women ended up in police
    cells, as did Martin Luther King. And, ultimately, the campaign was
    successful. The city of Birmingham rejected segregation and the protests
    arguably led to one of the most significant victories of the civil rights
    movement: the adoption of the Civil Rights Act.
    
    Mass arrests have been an important tool of black resistance for a very
    long time. But let’s face it: there is a big difference between Martin
    Luther King telling you to get arrested and some white guy from Wales. The
    civil rights movement was a movement designed by black people for black
    people. Extinction Rebellion is not and therefore the strategy needs to
    change, or — at the very least — adapt. And so do those in positions of
    power.
    
    *And so we go towards that change. With courage and with love.*
    
    Now is the time to be brave.
    
    And sometimes the bravest act is not an act at all. It is to stop. To
    reflect. To listen. To learn. And to change.
    
    And if this last year has taught us anything, it has taught us that now is
    the time for change. Meaningful change. Radical change. System change. And
    we all need to talk about changing. We need to accept that this will be
    slow. We need to recognise that there will be many more mistakes still to
    come. That this is the nature of resistance. But that, together, we can get
    there.
    
    We need to talk with one another, stand alongside one another. We need to
    show people what a more loving vision of the world actually looks like. We
    must transform this movement into a movement with justice at its heart.
    With love and compassion deeply imbedded in everything we do.
    
    In April, we sounded the alarm. Now we need to point towards the fire exits.
    
    The road ahead of us is longer than the road we have already travelled.
    There is no denying it is going to be difficult. After all, we are
    attempting to transform every aspect of our current society. To reinvent
    the world. And to do it at pace.
    
    The debate over the future of Extinction Rebellion is a debate that all of
    us need to participate in.
    
    So, how is that change going to happen?
    
    Well, here are some suggestions we can implement right away:
    
    1. Adopt a fourth central demand on climate and ecological justice, calling
    for reparations, land rights, ecocide law, and a renewed focus on racial
    and economic equality.
    
    2. Elect all central role-holders and establish democratic ways in which
    the entire movement can decide on the most important issues. If something
    is particularly contentious, there needs to be a process for triggering a
    vote.
    
    3. End the ridiculous messaging around prison being a fun place to be.
    Similarly, end the simplistic messaging around policing. Work with other
    activists to amplify other social justice causes now.
    
    4. Establish trainings for all activists and organisers on climate justice
    and racial equality. Hold public discussions on the politics and ideas of
    the green movement. Provide ways in which activists and members of the
    public can educate themselves.
    
    5. Focus on building relationships with other activist groups and making
    the link between climate change and other important political issues. I
    don’t wanna be part of your revolution if it ain’t intersectional.
    
    6. Involve everyone — including the wider climate movement — in open
    discussions about the future of the movement and where we all need to go
    now. Remember that the future is going to be humble. The revolution will
    not happen under any one banner or any one flag. It will require all of us
    to work together. To rise together. For justice. And compassion. And love.
    
    And beyond that? Well, I don’t really know. But I suppose it’s about time
    we had the conversation, isn’t it?
    
    In the meantime, if you are still thinking of joining Extinction Rebellion,
    then please do. Now is the time for fresh new activists with fresh new
    ideas. What happens next is going to be hard won and bitterly fought over.
    Now is not the time to criticise from the sidelines. Now is the time to
    transform it. To change it. To have a hand in shaping its future. Support
    the International Solidarity Group. Get behind new groups like XR
    Liberation. Amplify the voices of young people, of working class people, of
    people of colour. Join the Global Justice Rebellion.
    
    I know this may sound daunting, but it will definitely be worth it.
    After all, this is what real activism is all about
    
    
    .______________________________
    
    Jai Sen
    
    Independent researcher, editor
    
    jai.sen@...
    
    Now based in New Delhi, India (+91-98189 11325) and in Ottawa, Canada, on
    unceded Anishinaabe territory (+1-613-282 2900)
    
    CURRENT / RECENT publications :
    
    Jai Sen, ed, 2018a – *The Movements of Movements, Part 2 : Rethinking Our
    Dance*. Ebook and hard copy available at PM Press <http://www.pmpress.org/>
    
    Jai Sen, ed, 2018b – *The Movements of Movements, Part 1 : What Makes Us
    Move ?* (Indian edition). New Delhi : AuthorsUpfront, in collaboration with
    OpenWord and PM Press.  Hard copy available at MOM1AmazonIN
    <https://www.amazon.in/dp/9387280101/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1522884070&sr=8-2&keywords=movements+of+movements+jai+sen>
    , MOM1Flipkart
    <https://www.flipkart.com/the-movements-of-movements/p/itmf3zg7h79ecpgj?pid=9789387280106&lid=LSTBOK9789387280106NBA1CH&marketplace=FLIPKART&srno=s_1_1&otracker=search&fm=SEARCH&iid=ff35b702-e6a8-4423-b014-16c84f6f0092.9789387280106.SEARCH&ppt=Search%20Page>,
    and MOM1AUpFront <http://www.authorsupfront.com/movements.htm>
    
    Jai Sen, ed, 2017 – *The Movements of Movements, Part 1 : What Makes Us
    Move ?*.  New Delhi : OpenWord and Oakland, CA : PM Press.  Ebook and hard
    copy available at PM Press <http://www.pmpress.org/>
    
    *SUBSCRIBE TO World Social Movement Discuss*, an open, unmoderated, and
    self-organising forum on social and political movement at any level (local,
    national, regional, and global).  *To subscribe, simply send an empty email
    to wsm-discuss-subscribe@...
    <wsm-discuss-subscribe@...>*
    
    ________________________________________
    ** Inspired by the World Social Forum, WSMDiscuss – the successor to a list
    named ‘WSFDiscuss’ started in 2005 - is an open, unmoderated, and
    self-organising forum for the exchange of information and views on the
    experience, practice, and theory of social and political movement at any
    level (local, national, regional, and global), including the World Social
    Forum.  Join in ! **
    _______________________________________________
    World Social Movement Discuss mailing list
    POST to LIST : Send email to wsm-discuss@...
    SUBSCRIBE : Send empty email to
    wsm-discuss-subscribe@...
    UNSUBSCRIBE : Send empty email to
    wsm-discuss-unsubscribe@...
    LIST ARCHIVES : https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/
    LIST INFORMATION :
    https://lists.openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/wsm-discuss
    POSTING GUIDELINES :
    http://openspaceforum.net/twiki/tiki-index.php?page=Mailing+List+Posting+Guidelines
    Old / previous WSFDiscuss List Archives :
    http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/