We claim that we "speak truth to power." Can we likewise claim to speak truth to ourselves? This piece, in recognition of International Women's Day, examines the role of women in activist organizations.

::::::::

Today, March 8, 2006, is International Women's Day. Without regard to race or ethnicity, the Sisterhood–women on all continents and separated by national boundaries and cultural differences, as well as language and often politics—will mark this Day.

We'll grieve for our sisters… the loss of life, of dignity… those things we experience through being treated as less than equal, or being actually enslaved or abused in some way. .. and honor those who came before us, activists who dared to push the boundaries of political protest to secure freedom… our sisters who pursued equal rights with regard to a myriad of women's issues, including the right to vote, equal opportunity in education and employment, reproductive choice, etc.

There have always been those among us who have taken a wider view of freedom, however, and understood it to be not only a women's issue, but a universal one. Such women also understood that The Struggle is ongoing. As Coretta Scott King once said, "[The] Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won. You earn it and win it in every generation."

We women are the life bringers. Giving birth as we do is an important thing in the scheme of things… important to survival, continuation. But that isn't all there is. Women bring life and contribute to the survival of all through the work of our hands.

Women also teach the values of our respective cultures to the generations.

But, most of all, women—some such as these—teach courage:

CORETTA SCOTT KING was known first as the wife of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., then as his widow. Mrs. King rose from rural poverty in Alabama to become an international symbol of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s and a tireless advocate for social and political issues ranging from women's rights (a woman before her time, she stunned Dr. King's father, who presided over her 1953 nuptials, by demanding that the promise to obey her husband be removed from the wedding vows) to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Dr. King described Coretta as a partner in his mission, not just a supportive spouse. "I wish I could say, to satisfy my masculine ego, that I led her down this path," he said in a 1967 interview. "But I must say we went down together, because she was as actively involved and concerned when we met as she is now." Despite the now documented COINTELPRO* tactics brought against her and Dr. King, Mrs. King did not waver from her purpose. She lectured, read poetry and sang to raise awareness of the civil rights movement. When she stood in for her slain husband in 1968 at the Poor People's Campaign in Washington, DC, she spoke not just of his vision, but of her own—one about gender, as well as race, in which she called upon American women to unite and fight the three great evils of racism, poverty, and war. She became widely identified with a broad array of international human rights issues.

ANNA MAE AQUASH (of the Mi’kmaq Nation from Nova Scotia, Canada) was a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) who, in the 1970s, dedicated herself to defending the rights of Indigenous People. In South Dakota and elsewhere, Anna Mae quickly became known for her organizing skills and passionate idealism. She was outspoken and intelligent, keen to talk of treaties and The Peoples' freedom. Her dedication and ability to stand strong in the face of adversity eventually led to her death. She was found murdered in 1976 on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), ultimately responsible through their COINTELPRO tactics for her untimely death, failed to conduct a thorough investigation—documenting the cause of death as "exposure" when, it was later found, she had actually been shot in the back of the head—because she was an Indian and a member of AIM, and perhaps to cover up the Bureau's own role in her death.

JUDI BARI—Environmental activist, Judi Bari, made history when she stood up and renounced the tactic of tree spiking. A little more than a month after the public renunciation, Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney were car bombed. Rather than attending to the physical evidence, the FBI and the Oakland, California, police (based on their shared belief that the victims' political ideology was objectionable and a threat to the status quo) advanced an absurd theory that Bari and Cherney had been responsible for their own injuries. About four years ago, a federal jury found the FBI and Oakland police liable for violation of Bari's and Cherney's civil liberties, awarding millions of dollars in damages. (Given the recent roundup of the so-called "eco-terrorists," the Bari/Cherney case should remind us how easily the FBI has fallen into deceit over the years and conducted unconstitutional actions against political activists.)

These women (and numerous others) understood that freedom and responsibility are intertwined and to put responsibility down is to give away one's power. To give that power away means that others get to decide for us. Why would any of us ever surrender our power?

Coretta Scott King said, "Women, if the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that you must become its soul."

Our respective movements seek to address symptoms only—of the rank materialism that infects the United States. Materialism breeds greed. Greed in turn leads to oppression and a predisposition to violence in all forms:

+ in domestic assault, i.e., in our own homes, the presence of physical, psychological, and emotional violence against significant others;

+ in racism and poverty, whether in our local communities or around the world, where "others" especially Indigenous Peoples struggle daily to merely survive;

+ in rape, not a sexual crime but one of domination and control and, in its worst form, used as a tactic of war;

+ in torture, the inhumane treatment visited on Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay detainees, for example, but minor abuse compared to the treatment of men and women in this nation's own prisons; and

+ in war—where, at least one time in each generation, our country is moved to armed conflict and where the flag-waving and patriotic posturing serves only to mask what is ultimately at the center of all warfare, i.e., the taking by force of that which this country has come to view as property only, the lands humans walk upon and the natural resources under our feet.

What are we women to do? How can we possibly hope to end this centuries-old pattern? How do we help to redirect an entire country, much less the world?

We begin with the more manageable task, perhaps. We become the soul of a movement.

Whether within our individual organizations or the worldwide human rights network, we work within a collective. It's important that we always show regard to the principles of collective life, therefore, not our personal inclinations. Our organizations (or movements) thrive with the presence of true commitment, we know. But perhaps we will truly flourish, both as individuals and organizations, if we also work from an ethical foundation, recognize reality always, and respond appropriately to that reality, i.e., with swift and sure action (not to be confused with undo haste or recklessness), and with both creativity and courage (boldly exercising our free will, but also accepting responsibility for our actions).

We need to respect one another, first and foremost, and recognize that we all contribute in our own often unique ways. We must also acknowledge that this isn't done without sacrifice. We all lose important pieces of our lives along the way. As has often been noted, freedom is not free. We have all, as the song urges, found "the cost of freedom" to one degree or another.

We need to practice inclusion. Our respective movements represent the branches of the one tree—human rights. If we strive for human rights, all of us as human beings must be included in the vision—regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Committing as we do and sacrificing in equal measure, we must all be equal partners in The Struggle.

We need to put forward our ideas to our organizations—openly, freely. The organization, in turn, must value all ideas whether we adopt them or not. In this way, there will always be a free exchange of thought, as well as an environment graced by creativity—the very things that will help us keep our organizations viable and advance our vision of freedom.

We need to eliminate "sibling violence" between the members of our own political movements. We claim that we "speak truth to power." Can we likewise claim to speak truth to ourselves? The violence seen worldwide (physical, psychological, and emotional) is resident in our own movements—and be it man-to-woman or woman-to-woman abuse, we too often look the other way as one of us does harm to another. If we seek to take responsibility for the state of the world, of a nation, we must first take responsibility for our own behavior.

Should we indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite, or seek revenge? For the sake of unity, or progress and getting the work done properly, might we instead communicate openly and honestly and respectfully so as to avoid interpersonal conflict, as well as concentrate fully on work-related issues that emerge rather than personal ones?

If we seek justice, we need to practice justice. We often reject the ways in which justice is administered in this country, but should that mean that we also reject the promise of justice for all? We cannot condemn our compatriots with conjecture, gossip, innuendo, or hearsay. If one accuses another of wrongdoing, the burden of proof must be on the accuser and guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Members of our collectives must never be tried and convicted by our organizations without ever having heard others' complaints much less being afforded the opportunity to speak to those complaints. If we do not practice justice, we become that which we struggle against—the oppressor.

When someone among us has clearly gone wrong—unless the actions are proven and are so egregious as to require expulsion—we need to proceed with principled argument and thorough examination of fact, and with the purpose of correcting the behavior only, rather than condemning a member of our community. In this way, our organizations and the individuals within our collectives will not be harmed.

In this dangerous time when many of our movements are under attack by the oppressor, we must not succumb to the COINTELPRO-style machinations of the government which appeal to the baser elements of our nature. Those whom we oppose learned long ago that ideological, political, and organizational chaos will ensue wherever personal interests come first before the interests of our respective movements. The oppressor also knows that when fear infects us, it serves only to blind us to the truth. Another lesson learned: With fear, there can be no justice. These elements can do nothing else but destroy unity, encourage dissension and, ultimately, create apathy. They rob our organizations of motivation, dedication, and discipline, and prevent our plans from being carried through and our goals achieved. For these reasons, the oppressor welcomes the continuation of such elements in our movements. For these reasons, we must eliminate them. To do otherwise is to give "aid to the enemy."

What can we women do?

We can carry on The Struggle with dignity and grace. We can bring focus to and pass on the values upon which our organizations were founded. We can bring life, as is our nature.

In Solidarity,

Delaney Bruce

*Despite the public image of the FBI as the nation's premier law enforcement agency, it has always functioned primarily as America's political police. This role includes not only the collection of intelligence on the activities of political dissidents and groups, but often times counterintelligence operations to thwart those activities. Although the FBI's covert operations have been active throughout its history, the formal COunter INTELligence PROgram, or COINTELPRO, of the second half of the 20th century was centrally directed and targeted a range of political dissidents and organizations. The stated goals of COINTELPRO were to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" those persons or organizations that the FBI decided were "enemies of the State." For more information, please visit www.cointel.org.

Submitter: