This session, I came in with a long list of terms and concepts for discussion. We selected three set of these, and proceeded to talk in depth about them (notes follow). After the break, we had discussions on specific topics chosen at general by each participant (no notes taken for this part).

The three different sets of concepts/terms we discussed were:

• Charity VS Solidarity
• Direct Democracy VS Representative Democracy
• Anti-Oppression and related concepts

Charity VS Solidarity

• feeling ‘sorry for’ / pity
• ‘saving’
• ‘they’ / other vs making connection
• what are you giving? leftovers vs what you value
• charity works in reducing guilt
• transformation from charity -> into solidarity
• fine line sometimes
• ex: how is ‘food not bombs’ different from the food bank?
• putting in effort?
• all equals?
• taking responsibility
• symptoms vs causes, but can’t only address causes (ex: sexual assault support centre’s still necessary)
• what is charity appeal to? ‘middle class guilt’?
• paternalism
• ‘noblesse obligé’ (french term)
• cooptation with funding? who is in control?
• consider feelings/roles on both ends
• who’s in control?
• charity: keeping people down, breadcrumbs, pacify, bureaucracy, submit to rules, do you qualify?, ‘clients’
• solidarity: strengthen capacity of the people to fight for their rights
• liberation theology
• combinging self-interest with altruism: John Casper aka Max Sterner “union of egoists” concept
• quotes:
• “Give someone a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach someone to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.”
• “If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” - often credited to Lilla Watson, she says to credit the group she was part of, ‘Aboriginal activists group, Queensland [Australia], 1970s.’

Democracy (Direct VS Representative)

➜ (Majority) Voting VS Consensus

• issue of practicality: can’t decide everything that affects our lives
• not need everyone involved with everything?
• ex: big picture vs small picture
• people get involved in what they’re interested in
• division of labour/expertise: not necessarily bad, actually necessary, just have too much of it now (‘pin factory’ example: actually found in study better quality of life when rotate tasks, have control over management decisions)
• delegation:
• bonds of trust
• temporary, contingent, accountalbe, recall option
• representative
• system to govern us, not do what we’d like
• democractic deficit/rhetoric: $$ influence hidden by talk of ‘democracy’
• consensus concerns
• can be dealt with by modified consensus
• having an individual block everything?
• can vary depending on type of group (single-issue? short term? long term? community based? etc)
•  basis of unity / membership criteria
• consensus resource: www.consensus.net
• example (metaphor for current democratic system) for TV show ‘Yes Prime Minister‘ considering how leading questions can make up peoples minds: text link –&– video link
• how some of Six Nations confederacy system was adopted into US system of democracy:
• how true?
• what parts?
• why is US system so messed up?
• also, book (from 60s, questionable?) mentions how US ‘founding fathers’ were very familiar with Old Testament Jewish society that had many democratic elements
• the great ‘models of democracy’, US and Greece:
• both only democracy of certain people (not slaves, not women, …)
• James Madison quote: “They [government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority”
• even into present, poorer people vote less: shows why ACORN efforts to get voters out was so targetted/attacked

Anti-Oppression

➜ Forms of oppression; systemic; prejudice; stereotype
➜ Diversity; Inclusion-Exclusion; Accessibility; Tolerance; Tokenization; Multiculturalism

• how some people will dismiss talk of, say, ‘diversity’ in favour of ‘anti-oppression’ (or vice versa), but some willing to speak different languages without absolute judgement of one over the other
• what are we looking at? participation in groups (internal), what happens ‘out there’ (external)
• notes on ‘diversity and making membership accessible’: click here (top part)
• thinking about ‘experts’: do they help? hinder? some of both?
• effectively dealing with problems? paternalistic or empowering?
• privilege of identity, also privelege of ‘credentials’/'qualifications’
• need to go to school (or workshops/…) to learn about oppression? or can informal learning/experience/understanding be just as valuable(and valued?)?
• problem of people not ‘checking themselves’ b/c they feel they are ‘experts’/knowledgeable enough, that they just feel they need to ‘call out’ others they see as having problematic behaviours
• separating the person from the behaviour (not, “you’re racist”, but, “that is racist”)
• ‘Unpacking the invisible knapsack (white privilege)’ exercise by Peggy McIntosh, links: PDF  — Original PDF — Text (w/ male privilege added) — Video
• problems of ‘calling out’ (a management-/class-based mindset?), excerpt from ‘Facilitating Group Learning’ p75 by George Lakey