tyresias | later reflection on last Wednesday

I am happy to chalk it up to a difference in notions of effective activism. I recognize that my priorities that shape my understanding of effectiveness are different than most people, this is nothing new. I spoke in real time with all but one of the people that I cared to clear things up with and I am satisfied with those discussions even if I did not reach agreements with all of them.

I do my best to place oppressions within the largest frame context and systems that govern how they affect people both at the micro and macro level. I believe in naming oppressive or discriminatory instances by their proper name, and not letting the stigma that few people want associated to themselves by these names, because only then do I believe the real issue can be addressed in its entirety.

In this case, I do not believe it was as clear cut a case as many were told it was (myself included originally) because it stemmed (in part) from internal discrimination. I cannot presume to know what at least one person, likely the many, who made the request to management for the changes was envisioning or intending. I can relate it to similar situations both with my own “race” and a lesser similar way to my sexuality. This does not mean I believe the bar’s management holds no accountability for the decision, of course they do, but it becomes a much harder thing for me to hold them accountable for. Many believe that intention matter that much, that so long as intent was not there, they are not \/\/-ist (\/\/ = whatever) because one needs to do some oppressive or discriminatory with malicious intent for it to be oppressive or discriminatory. I am not of that belief, but having held it for so long, I certainly have every idea what it’s like to believe this. My most common example to explain this is around accessibility. An architect who designs a building with no accessible entrance, I would default to believe, does not do so with consciousness of accessibility and the malicious intent to bare people with dis/abilities from entering it. They just designed a building to function for the type of body they have and the lack of awareness prevented further consideration, not ill-intent. But all the good intent of the architect does not get someone in a wheelchair up a flight of stairs. The building (and by extension any organization inside of it) is abilist, even if no ill-intent ever entered the equation.

Basically:

I spoke to a (self-identified) black woman who admitted to requesting the change in music to the bar. I do not believe the bar’s response should have been to comply in the manner they did, or at least if it has been intended as a short term solution without explaining it and welcoming suggestions for alternate ways to address the concerns of those who made the request. I know the choice of words said at the staff meeting could be interpreted as the hearsay/rumours claimed with no ill-intent on whoever modified the choice of words. I hope the bar will respond to the forthcoming article in Xtra even though they have decided to resume playing the 2 types of music in light of criticism such as the one displayed on Wednesday night. I do not believe merely resuming to play the music without addressing the concerns is the way to go about things and there is still a great opportunity for education here.

As I told Dainty directly yesterday, I do admire everyone who went to the bar to make their belief known. This is regardless of whether or not I agree fully with the way that particular message was sent. I understand the method was in accordance with their views of the issue, that differ from my understanding of the situation and views on ways to address that type of discrimination by a private capitalist establishment. Dainty knows where my beliefs are and what I’m willing to do in the near future depending on the bar’s (hopeful or lack thereof) response to her article.

If others want to address something come to me directly than we can resolve issues further. I prefer in person or online (phones make me generally uncomfortable and voice mails are even worse) but do not expect me to respond via the same indirect routes. I do not have the energy to address rumours spread by people who assume the worse about me without verifying with me 1^st and/or choose to distort events they were privy to.

One last thing: in the sexist, agist, abilist and racist systems I grew up in, I learnt that no one was going to appoint a time for me to ask points of information. I could take up the space I needed to understand a situation or remain ignorant. I understand it’s problematic for me to uphold this as often and much as I do but I believe that watering down situations and/or the level of content is even more offensive/classist. If I am challenged on my inaccessible vocabulary, I do my best to get the same point across while checking my academic snobbism/privilege but discussion should be about increasing and spreading information not limiting and controlling it. TEACH taught me not only the importance of doing this but showed me it was very possible.