Searching for Tao, 7573 Kilometres from Home

September 02, 2007 00:20 +0000 | Activism 2

I've been following a bit of a depressing line of thinking lately, and I'm hoping that someone out there can offer a ray of light or two.

Activists, by definition, are warriors of a sort. We fight against things like CCTV, expressways and poor environmental degredation and we fight for things like gay marriage, bike lanes and transparency in government. For the most part, we benefit from a the fact that fights for things are rarely lost, but at the same time, we rarely win a war against something.

The gay rights issue for example is already won. As much as the opponents might try to fight it, sooner or later, every gay guy and girl will be able to shag and marry whomever they want world-wide. This is not a fight that can lose, it can only take longer to win.

On the other hand, look at the construction of a Wal-Mart or (in my case) CCTV. These are things that move at a glacial pace and are, as such nearly unstoppable. Whether you want it or not, whether is the Right Thing or not, it's going to happen because the forces on the "yes" side are bigger, stronger and richer than anything we can summon.

How do you fight that? Should anyone bother? How are these two things different and how might someone turn the forces that fight for something into a weapon to fight agaisnt something else?

Comments

noreen
2 Sep 2007, 4:44 a.m. |

I always believe there's a balance of some kind. The forces on the other side are bigger, stronger and richer - BUT what comes up, must also go down. I don't know how to fully explain it right now (my brain is squishy) but hopefully you understand what I mean. Don't give up hope.

Melanie
4 Sep 2007, 7:03 p.m. |

as I said before, it's the fighting that's important, not the winning and losing. I know it can be discouraging to feel like things are already decided even before you've started to fight, but sooner or later your actions make a difference.