Im interested in this article for a couple of reasons, one of which is that Ive been thinking and talking a lot lately about the weird, thin, grey, fuzzy dividing line between righteous anger and accidental counter-revolutionary punishment, especially as it is all affected by internet culture. This Colbert situation is not the greatest example, methinks, and I really wish he wouldve broken character on camera to offer an apology and clarification. Separately, however, I really want us all to be talking lovingly and a lot about what a call-out looks like with long-term vision and/or revolutionary etiquette in mind. What do you all think? --How do all-or-nothing tactics that emerge from (completely understandable) anger/hurt affect the outcomes of our calls to justice? --Who has what responsibilities to kindness in a call-out? --Are guilt and punishment viable tactics for change and growth? --What does the script for a functional, firm, long-sighted call-out look like? --How can we continue to focus on behavior not on prescriptions for identity? --Is essentialism counter-revolutionary? And thats the bottom line for the Native activists on Twitter who saw a real opportunity to open some eyes when Snyder announced his bizarrely named charity: The momentum building for their campaign -- #Not4Sale -- was stymied by #CancelColbert. In an interview with The New Yorker that only briefly mentioned Dan Snyder and his foundation, Suey Park admitted she likes Colbert Report and didnt actually want to see it canceled. Yet a single Tweet connected to a satirist -- whose well-known shtick is to parody arrogant conservatives -- made more waves than a campaign against a racist team name that has been with us for decades. Read more at indiancountrytodaymedianetwork/2014/04/01/snyder-wins-how-cancelcolbert-drowned-out-native-voice-154270
Posted on: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:02:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015