Jenny’s Pennies

I read this old post over at The Republic of T, and it really got me thinking. It’s called A question on dailogue and T writes:

When I first came to D.C. to work in politics, and to work specifically on gay rights issues, I was told and came to understand that people fall into three categories when you’re working for social change:

1. The people who are on your side.
2. The people who aren’t on your side, but could be if they’re persuaded.
3. The people who are not on your side and never will be.

The first group you need to talk to in order to keep them informed and motivated. The second group you need to talk to in order to make your case and move them to your side. Talking to the third group is a waste of time and energy better spent shoring up support in the first group and winning support in the second group.

There are some interesting thoughts in the comments section. I have been thinking a lot about this ever since reading it a few days ago. Is there any point in talking to people from the third group?

I have a morbid fascination for reading letters to the editor and reader’s comments to newspaper articles. I also read a lot of blog comments. And very very rarely have I come across anyone who has said, after being faced with arguments from “the other side”: you know what, you’re right. I’ve changed my mind.

Of course, it is possible that we can “plants seeds” of thought in their heads by exposing them to our arguments. But then on the other hand, I can’t see myself changing my mind on issues like the death penalty, sexual and reproductive rights, or GLBT rights, however many opinions and articles on these issues I read from people with views opposite of mine. So why should we have any more luck with them?

Another view is that we have the responsibility to at least try to educate the people from group three. But as a commenter over a T:s said, there is the old saying about never trying to teach a pig to sing. It will only waste your time and annoy the pig.

There is always the argument that you shouldn’t let people speak unopposed, but call out their logical fallacies, their propaganda, false use of statistics, straw-men arguments and other dirty tricks (I touched upon that here).

I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I think it is much more efficient to use the counter-argumentation to solidify the support of group one and sway over people from group two. I think it’s more efficient to say “look what x said about gay rights - here’s why x is wrong” instead of addressing x directly (given that x isn’t someone you personally relate to, like a family member, or that x is actually interested in open, honest discussion).

As T writes:

So I start to wonder, given all the above, why they’d want to waste their time in a dialogue where both parties are immovable. It’s then that I wonder if, for the third group, engaging in dialogue or at least pretending to is a tactic because if you’re talking to them you’re not talking to the people in the first and second group. And if you’re not talking to the people in the first and second group, spending your energy arguing with the third, then you aren’t making any progress on your goals.

This is a tough issue, and I really don’t know where to come down on it.

So, after reading the story about activist Dmitri Vitaliev (see below), I decided to browse The Age’s website - I’m always looking for foreign newspapers to add to my ever expanding bookmark collection.
And there I found this story called One man’s trash, about collecting goods for humanitarian causes. Now, I should say that there sometimes are problems with the whole “let’s give our old stuff to charity”-idea. A friend who worked at a second hand shop run by a charity told me they got so much unusable crap and were used as a mere garbage dumpster by some people. Why do some people think that the poor deserve getting old crap? And sometimes it is patronizing as well, as in “why do the poor complain so much? If they would get their children clothes at charities instead of at the mall they would have more money!” (but of course, their precious children would never have to do the same).

But aside from this, the idea of giving your old stuff away to someone who might need it, is a great idea. We live in a “use it and loose it”-society where so many things which are perfectly usable are thrown away.

So, the story in The Age tells us about Liz Baker who has started the project Uplift Fiji. The idea is simple: to send used bras to disadvantaged women in Fiji. In two years, more than 10 000 bras has been sent from Baker’s home in Melbourne, Australia. From the article:

The project, Uplift Fiji, is run through Rotary International World Community Service and started two years ago on Baker’s family holiday to Fiji. Her father-in-law, Rotarian Ron Smith, was involved in Rotary’s overseas Donations in Kind program at the time. Baker asked if there was anything she could take to Fiji from Australia and bras, she says, was the overriding answer. “I took 50 bras over when I went on holiday and I sent another 90 not long afterwards. Then it snowballed,” says Baker.

In Fiji the average wage ranges from $1.50 to $4.50 an hour and the average cost of a new bra is about $40. “When you are down around the poverty line you are spending a massive proportion of your income on food. If you had to drop 10 or 20 hours’ wages on a bra, what would be the chances?” she says.

It is easy to forget that something as simple as a bra can mean an improvement in the quality of life for a woman in Fiji. In the hot, humid climate of the Pacific island country, going bra-less can lead to fungal infections, excoriation and abscesses.

And besides letting disadvantaged women of Fiji be more comfortable and avoiding certain medical conditions, the project has also led to a small shift in the way women is viewed:

Baker says the bra is now striking a blow for feminism. “Word of the bra project has spread among traditional villages and men are coming from isolated areas asking for bras for their women.”

Big cheers for this kind of simple and direct activism!

Update: Liz Baker who runs Uplift Fiji told me in comments that The Age has published the wrong address to her website. The address is http://lizbaker.customer.netspace.net.au/ (no www!) and a direct link is here

A nice profile from Australian paper The Age about a young Australian activist who uses his tech knowledge to help human rights defenders around the world:

IN THE bustle of a Melbourne cafe strip, Dmitri Vitaliev’s eyes glaze as he remembers a very different crowd. In 2004, the then 24-year-old travelled to the East Congo to hide an internet connection in a church.

“It was one of the most incredible experiences,” the Russian-born, Melbourne-raised Mr Vitaliev says. “In many ways very scary, very sad. We drove through the killing fields, where in one day they killed 70,000 people. It was full of UN peacekeepers, tanks rolling around on broken roads. People starving.

“When I was there, a troupe of child soldiers, rebels, came from the mountains to surrender. It was a group of 50 child soldiers, everybody armed with a machine-gun, myself and my friend were the only white shapes standing there in the middle of the square. It was unnerving.”

He was there to give human rights activists access to the internet by hiding a satellite access point in a church. Previously, they had to travel 40 kilometres and cross the border into Burundi just to send an email.

It is part of his job: Mr Vitaliev travels the world helping human rights organisations set up their IT so they cannot be spied on or censored by oppressive regimes.

Found via …Or does it explode?

Via Global Voices, I found a report from Zimbabwean activist community Kubatana on what meaning Valentine’s day can take in a country stricken by poverty and disregard for human rights. Hundreds of people from the organizations WOZA and MOZA (Women/Men of Zimbabwe Arise) took the streets in their yearly Valentine’s day protest to spread the message that the power of love will overcome the love of power. From www.kubatana.net:

The aim of the peaceful protest was to encourage Zimbabweans to stand up for their children in these times of extreme hardship and as an election looms. WOZA was formed in 2003 amidst severe political violence to demonstrate love and courage to all Zimbabweans. In 2008 this motivation is still equally relevant.

800 men and women processed for four city blocks through central Bulawayo, singing and handing out red roses and Valentine cards to passers-by. The response from people was exceptional with huge groups forming on pavements and motorists hooting to encourage the procession. Many people stepped forward to receive the cards and roses.

In contrast to many other peaceful demonstrations by the opposition in Zimbabwe, this one was allowed to dissolve peacefully and no arrests seem to have been made, however the police did try to stop the protesters.

However we choose to celebrate or ignore Valentine’s day, maybe we should do like the brave women and men in Zimbabwe and make it about the power of love and not about the power of crass commercialism (such as this puke worthy ad - this is not “the power of love”. Found via Shakesville).

The media spotlight has turned elsewhere, but Amnesty International reminds us that human rights abuses continue in Burma. According to new research by AI, there have been 96 arrests since November 1st last year.

“Four months on from the violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators, rather than stop its unlawful arrests the Myanmar government has actually accelerated them,” said Catherine Baber, director of Amnesty International Asia-Pacific programme. “The new arrests in December and January target people who have attempted to send evidence of the crackdown to the international community, clearly showing that the government’s chief priority is to silence its citizens who would hold them to account.”

Read the full report from Amnesty here (or here, in Swedish).

A couple of months ago, everyone seemed to care about Burma. I, like so many others, joined the Facebook group “Support the monk’s protest in Burma” (link, requires login) and on September 30th 2007, we were urged to wear a red shirt to show our support. Which I did (well, it was a scarf, since I don’t own a red shirt, but whatever), and many with me.
(I am really quite skeptical of this kind of activism, as shown on Facebook. It’s easy to put on a red shirt and to feel good about supporting a good cause, but does it really achieve anything? I don’t know. I think I will need to elaborate on the issue in another post.) Now people are leaving the Facebook group by the thousands. I really don’t know why I’m still in it either - I mean I don’t really do anything, but anyways. I was glad to see, however, when I checked in today, that there still seems to be events and activism taking place in support of Burma around the world.

Resources to check out:
Svenska Burmakommittén (The Swedish Burma Committee)
The Burma Campaign UK
TBCC: Thailand Burma Border Consortium This is a charity consortium consisting of NGOs from nine different countries. TBCC provides food, shelter and non food items to refugees and displaced people from Burma.