Artivism at its finest
From Huffington Post
Want to see more from Arzola and his “I’m Not A Joke” series? Head here to check out the artist’s Tumblr.
From Huffington Post
Want to see more from Arzola and his “I’m Not A Joke” series? Head here to check out the artist’s Tumblr.
From Huffington Post
Whether it’s taking over government offices, or shutting down Wall Street or infiltrating TV shows to force a confrontation, sometimes political protests can be really inconvenient. And at times they target powerful people who already agree with the protestors! What’s the point of that?
Well, sometimes if you have a problem, you can work hand-in-hand with institutions that can help, through lobbying, and petitions, and meetings and fancy dinners.
But that doesn’t always work. Powerful people don’t like to talk about issues that make them uncomfortable.
For example, in 1982, a reporter asked Reagan’s press secretary if the president was aware of the AIDS epidemic. He answered, “I don’t have it. Do you?” And then he laughed, and moved on.
Problems that matter to people in the margins can get laughed at, or forgotten or set aside for more palatable topics. The issues get stuck. Getting them unstuck requires a large amount of force. It takes an uncomfortable action to make people talk about uncomfortable topics.
The Reagan White House was laughing about AIDS for most of the 80s, so ACT UP forced them to take it more seriously by shutting down Wall Street to demand better treatment and a national AIDS policy. Within months, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop sent a mailer about AIDS to every home in America. It was the largest mailing in history.
Even when powerful people agree with protestors, sometimes important problems get marginalized. It still takes a disruptive push to bring a topic from the margins to the center of everyone’s attention.
That’s why protestors chained themselves to the White House fence to protest Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Obama had been saying for years that the military ban should be repealed but it wasn’t happening. So a group that included Dan Choi took action. Now obviously, one disruptive protest doesn’t solve a problem all by itself. But it keeps pushing the conversation. Centering the issue. Keeping it moving so it never gets stuck. Within a year of that protest, DADT repeal was signed into law.
Rude, uncomfortable, disobedient protests are particularly effective for people in disadvantaged positions. We tend to talk about Stonewall as the beginning of the modern LGBT liberation movement. But there was a riot at Compton’s Cafeteria in San Francisco three years earlier. Trans people had endured widespread harassment for years, and when a cop tried to arrest a trans woman just for being out in public, they finally fought back in a violent multi-day protest. It was messy and scary. But immediately afterwards, the San Francisco Police Department created COG, the first known trans support group in the country, along with the country’s first trans-focused social service agency.
Compare that to the polite rallies at the time. During the ‘60s, Frank Kameny organized some very professional, respectable protests in Washington DC. And although they formed the basis of later actions, you’ve probably never heard of them — and neither did people at the time. So Frank stepped up his tactics. In 1970, he led a protest against the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting, asking the APA to stop treating homosexuality as a mental illness. The next year, he crashed the meeting, grabbed the microphone and issued demands. That’s when things changed. The next year, the APA invited him to speak. And the year after that, the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM.
Every major advancement for people on the margins has required some disobedience. Yeah, it makes people uncomfortable. Sometimes it makes allies uncomfortable. And sometimes it makes the people taking the action uncomfortable. But that discomfort is the point.
It would be nice if there was a polite, palatable way for people who have limited access to power to affect change without hurting anyone’s feelings. But when people who do have access to power aren’t willing to talk about an important issue, and that issue is stuck, it’s never going to get any momentum unless you give it a strong shove.
It’s what we’ve seen over the last few decades with LGBT liberation. It’s what we saw with Occupy Wall Street. It’s what we see with Black Lives Matter. It even goes back to suffrage, when women were beaten and killed when they tried to force their way into government buildings. Suffragettes were accused of “militant hysteria.” Woodrow Wilson called them “obnoxious.” But as Laurel Thatcher Ulrich wrote, “well-behaved women seldom make history.”
If you’re a member of any group that’s been shut out, pushed aside, forgotten or made fun of, you’ll never change anything by following the rules. The rules are what marginalized you in the first place. You’ve got to break a few of them if you want to make history. And more importantly, change the future.
A list of resources that might prove very useful to develop your campaigning arguments:
http://www.quistapp.com/online-resources/
By Shea Bennett Social Times
Did you know that studies have shown that the optimum number of tweets to send per day is three, and that for maximum engagement you should aim to post between 9am and 3pm Monday through Thursday?
And the worst time to tweet? Every day after 8pm.
When you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Twitter users are just regular people, and people are far more likely to be active online earlier in the day (i.e., goofing around at work) and particularly lunchtime (1pm to 3pm is a great time to tweet) than they are late at night.
On Facebook, aim for two posts per day between 1pm and 4pm, while Instagram content generates maximum ROI between 2pm and 5pm.
Check out the visual below for more insights on a number of social media platforms, including Pinterest, Tumblr and LinkedIn, and comes courtesy of Setupablogtoday.com.
In the long debate on whether homosexuality is “natural”, “normal”, etc. it can be a useful to have these examples on animal behavior as part of campaign argumentation.
http://www.gaystarnews.com/…/so-it-turns-out-giraffes-are…/…
We nevertheless suggest to do more research and provide quotes from trusted institutions. GSN is arguably NOT a trusted source to homophobes. And the much cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bagemihl is often the only reference on the subject. It has to be noted though that although he is an academic, he is also a gay advocate, which minimizes his credibility with the public.
Also, at the end of the day: since when do animals provide justification for human behavior???
Instagram is getting more and more popular as a campaigning tool. Here’s some useful insight into how to make it work for your strategies
From Arts and Feminism
Here’s a really great innovative action that might be of some inspiration!
The Art+Feminism Wikipedia ‘edit-a-thon’ that took place on International Women’s Day helped create hundreds of new articles about female artists, who were previously underrepresented on the site.
Wikipedia is a leading source of knowledge for people across the world, and I would LOVE to see a similar action taken to promote LGBT history. In fact, if anyone would like to help organise something similar I would love to hear from them!
Sogicampaigns.org and our digital partners use cookies on this site. Some are strictly necessary to run the site but below are the optional ones:
• Used for measuring how the site is used
• Enabling personalisation of the site
• For advertising marketing and social media
Read more and customise cookie settings
Revoke cookies