The instant gratification of the organizational person often causes them to believe they have a much grander impact on history than what they possibly do. Yet, in a world where survival is typically more suited for those with strong social ties, than the opposite–it does motivate us with intellectual natures and socially responsible postures to consider more socially organized endeavors. Amongst the Afkan, it can be dangerous to leave particular historic considerations to oversight, however. The Cuban revolution, Castro’s revolution, is not the result of religious leaders on soapboxes or nationalistic zealots yelling with bull horns at passers by on the corner of busy thoroughfares. The story of social, economic, or/and political change is a litany of those organized for the purpose of taking change not simply for the sake of having organizations. As it stands, revolutions and revoltists are not defined by the books they read or the community organizations they are registered members of, but the sort of wars they are physically waging.
What we have seen in the Twittersphere, or more accurately, what is dubbed,”Black Twitter” or “The Black Blogosphere” is an inability to recognize the difference between waging a conflict for permanent change, and preaching from pulpits. The sexiness of Twitter, and the interwebs in general is the sheer connection to masses of people at the click of a button. To be able to build an audience of “followers ” while riding Metro or in the middle of a meeting can be quite tasty. It is this precise belief that others will be attracted to one’s words simply by showing up that has caused so many to have the terms “expert”, “guru”, “coach”, or “CEO” in their bio’s. It is also why many volley for attention as the most “revolutionary”.
There is a cited difference from being amongst the people as one of the many and being around or having access to people as one of their superiors — as one having authority over them. There is typically no benefit gleaned from being one of the crowd other than being in the crowd. So, it obviously benefits the ambitious, or the solely egotistical, to use labels and presentations that create a space for others to promote them above them Selves in stature.
In the Black community where the embers of revolution have been flamed into gang signs and bean pie sales charts, revolutionary and activist rhetoric take on a religious appeal and corporate tone.
This is to say: if one can present them Selves in a way that speaks to armed struggle against oppressors, people will overlook the fact that that said one works for an oppressive corporate structure — whether US Bank or Viacom. IF one can command presence and be seen as such in a crowd, then others will overlook “backwards” logic, such as a person denouncing atheism as a western (white) idea practice yet tout the benefits bequeathed from stoic masculinity. People will accept a woman as a feminist even if she objectifies her Self exploiting her own body politic for the purpose of group male pretend rape.
The modern day revolutionary-speak manipulator is very much the cousin of the religious or cult leader. When questioned, they toss red herring or ad homenim with lofty arrogance that says more about their disdain for others than their desire to actually be of some service.
To be continued Tomorrow…