Silent is a relative word. For some it means actually silent, not vocal about an issue. For others it means not being vocal in public settings in which it would be uncomfortable or unsafe to do so. For still others, it means not being vocal in public in ways that effectively induce change. So when I say silent, I refer to this spectrum.
Race and the current race war that is already raging is on all of our minds, so I would suggest reading the following with that in mind, though it applies equally to every progressive issue, including women's reproductive rights, gay marriage, social acceptance and rights of the trans community, Climate Change, the Class War, you name it. But to the matter of race and silence:
These are the reasons progressives are silent.
Of course ignorance, complacency and apathy are factors. With all the distractions, inertia for addressing justice is a huge impediment. (And I don't think that's entirely a coincidence.) Complacency comes from thinking things are just the way they are, they're normal, they're unchangeable, or they are only incrementally changeable. It's the assumption that justice must involve above all things endurance. It has to be a long slog because...that's how it's done. That is the status quo: change takes a long time. And apathy, well, that's usually because it's happening to someone else or it just seems hopeless.
But there's more than that.
Beyond the above reasons, progressives are silent because they fear physical, social and economic consequences.
Altogether, these are the main reasons I can think of for all progressive immobility, sluggishness, even retreat.
[There is also the matter of the growing passion and strength of the opposition, stirred up and funded as it is by oligarchs who've become radically richer, in part because of the cover they get from Culture War wedge issue warriors they've effectively mustered. That's right, what are passionate issues of justice to us are shells in a game to them. Misdirection. Energy sinks. Ponder that. Personally, that's why I focus on the Class War, because I consider it the fountainhead of funding for the Climate and Culture Wars.]
Back to race and silence.
It's not like the fears of physical, social and economic consequences for being publicly vocal and active in a strident, uncompromising manner aren't entirely understandable.
But inertia and fears that translate into silence do stand in the way of progress. They always have. Without them, I believe every progressive goal could be achieved much quicker, because with them a small fraction of the people who care are publicly engaged.
The sources of silence have to be understood and worked through in order to engage more people more consistently in progress. They can't be trivialized or marginalized. We have to find a way to acknowledge and organize around them.
Some people do face physically threatening consequences and in most of those cases I would find it hard to judge someone who was silent or slipped away without saying something, as unhelpful as that is. In this case, we need to mobilize means of squelching pre-mediated and impulsive physical reprisals. Making it much more socially unacceptable and the impetus of immediate, unequivocal, compelling, dramatic, uncomfortable, undesirable, consistently certain consequences is essential. Their must always be such consequences. It requires a nationwide network, programmed responses ever updated to stay ahead of both the ideological opposition and the official guardians of the power structure of the status quo, and drills.
Back to race and silence.
There are tons of people, for example, who will not march for certain issues or in certain places because of a fear of being seen by family, friends, acquaintances, bosses, coworkers, customers, vendors, competitors, or anyone who might ever have an influence on their social or economic standing.
Few people are willing to put their social or economic lives at risk. Again, understandably so. But this comes with huge consequences. Externalized costs.
And if you are in red state, this is a constant consideration for many, many progressives, the more so the more they are socially and/or professionally active.
[And I won't even get into people concerned with putting political or issue stickers or signs on their cars or lawns in their windows, for fear of reprisal.]
Protect immediate physical, social and economic conditions, or pursue broad economic, social and environmental progress?
Decisions, decisions.
Whenever you look behind social arrangements, you find a design that cages principles, prevents or retards change, protects or excuses the status quo and its beneficiaries. Fear promotes conformity. Conformity means acceptance. While oligarchs, the titans of the status quo, do not benefit directly from racism, for example, but they do benefit from its viability as a wedge issue, a way to get votes and distract people on both sides from their activities. So the intractability of racism in the status quo is part of a broader cultural structure that impedes all progress.
In this as in all things we have a choice between incrementalism and more immediate, radical change, which directly determine what strategies and tactics will be employed, which entirely depend upon what fears people are willing to face, what level of sacrifice people are willing to accept.
Yes, we need
electoral success. But it has not been and will not be enough. Because we are embroiled in and thwarted by massive corruption and yet another system designed to resist change, especially progressive change.
But we also need a critical mass of people on the front line who are willing to make great sacrifices. We need a support network for them which will provide logistical support: quality signs, leaflets, and swag; apparatus for civil disobedience for those willing to engage and willing to risk imprisonment; legal assistance; event management; press management; emotional support, especially when the law brings down the hammer of personal indiscretions, misdeeds, etc., often misrepresented or fabricated, which is really what the surveillance is all about; food and water; security; first aid; transportation; boarding; etc. And then there is funding to support all of this. So people can engage at different levels of sacrifice. But first and foremost there must be a critical mass on the ground.
And then there's direct action against organizations that are visually, actively engaged as opponents to progress. Similar rapid, massive, compelling response mechanisms and grinding programs like flush rush.
Incremental or radical?
Incremental or radical?
Constantly we are told that the former is normal, acceptable, the best we can reasonably expect. Or we are divided and conquered by issue, rather than united and undefeated across the platform, linking arms in mutual support.
As Al Sharpton said: "it was acceptable until we stopped accepting it."
And yeah, this is mostly directed at white people.