These were very thought provoking question you asked: Do you find it
impossible to relate to people in your facility? Do your organizing
conversations go nowhere? Do you struggle to get people to see the
importance of writing grievances? Well yes, yes and yes.
Many people say it is futile – show them, tell them examples of
otherwise. Offer to help if necessary.
I get angry with those who say, and this is quite common, “don’t come to
prison if you don’t like it.” I say “so, you must like prison by that
logic?” And I point to the relatively small-time offenses here compared
to the larger ones perpetrated on us and the other oppressed people.
I’ll say, look around, see anyone with any money, any rich or much less
upper class people up in here? I will appeal to their humanity and ask:
is it okay to take parents (mothers in my case, it’s a women’s facility)
away from their children for trying to support themselves? Point out the
economic basis of most crime in here.
Drug addicts often say “prison saved my life.” I’ll ask what else
might’ve helped you even if it was not available to you at the time?
What is prison helping you do differently to not use drugs? Do you know
the statistics of recidivism to not only drugs (relapse) but
re-incarceration? In a group, one can say all 5 of you claim you won’t
come back but 4 of you will, which ones? Why could this be? And point
out the “felon branding,” job killing, underclass designation. We don’t
have realistic options to not be around opportunities to use drugs, sell
drugs, etc. And more importantly why do people use the drugs they do?
I’ll talk about Dr. Gabor Mate’s theories of addiction, science of
addiction and how drug cases and/or addiction is dealt with in other
countries. How capitalism and materialism feed the alienation and
psychic (and physical) pain behind some addictions. Is there
recreational use? Why is marijuana now legal in 2/3 of states from full
recreational to medical yet Feds still criminalize (we have several
women here on marijuana charges).
Most importantly, I cultivate good will, openness and friendliness to
most inmates. I ask them about their families and comment on family
support being such a blessing. I talk to women, joke with them and show
my own struggles, vulnerability and wishes. I share pictures and stories
of their dogs and my dogs together, boyfriends, and I see people’s good
characteristics and basic drive to connect.
I redirect all the “positive thinking” into imagining what constitutes
actions. From first being thought of as “crazy” now I am considered the
fiery, spunky “fighter” in my 60s (I don’t look or act like it, they
say), and I do not believe I have a single enemy out of 93+ women. A few
of the COs do not like me however, because I will challenge them (not
needlessly or if I am doing something I could get written up for). For
example one telling me I was “disrespectful.” Well, this is true, I do
not respect lizards who jail people and profit off suffering. However,
they cannot punish a feeling, only an action. So, having the correct
attitude, but avoiding an action that only hurts yourself and denying
the CO “a win” is a win for the cause.
I cannot see the state weakening. It seems ever more powerful everyday
especially legally. The Feds especially are punishing small economic and
drug crimes with five years and up sentences. The new attorney general
is pushing the agenda for prosecutors to go for the high end of
guidelines and give out longer sentences for victim-less crimes than
murder in most other countries. The decisions by the Supreme Court and
Appeals Courts have seldom been in the interest of the people.
The reason gay and lesbian movements are being championed is because
they do not challenge the status quo on the capitalistic power structure
whatsoever. Think if felons received the same considerations in hiring
and for governments benefits. But it is completely legal to be
prejudiced and deny any employment or service based on being a felon.
The New Jim Crow isn’t just for New Africans anymore.
That’s my thinking. If I am to be a martyr you will know. I’d like my
life or death to have some consequence in the struggle.
MIM(Prisons) responds: In everything we do, we must try to
determine what will have the most impact the fastest. Sometimes people
are ready to just hear facts and then start doing political work. More
often, people hear truth in what we’re saying, but also have a lot of
resistance and ambivalence. As organizers, we’re trying to influence
them and push them. So helping them through these roadblocks is our job.
In these types of conversations, there is a natural dialectic that
occurs, where when one persyn takes one position, the other persyn
naturally argues the opposite position. And the more we argue a
position, the more likely we are to internalize that position and behave
accordingly.
So often we fall into the trap of trying to tell people what to think,
inadvertently entering into a head-on debate. Or we rely on luck that
the timing is right for them to grasp on to what we’re saying. These are
the easy routes of recruiting, because they don’t require as much
thoughtfulness or introspection on our part. And when people don’t grasp
it, we can put the blame on them for being lazy, or too caught up in
tribalism/capitalism/whatever. And sometimes we get lucky and people do
grasp it, which validates our mediocre approach.
But if we want to be the most effective at helping people grow and
change, we have to understand where they’re coming from, where they’re
at.
In impersynal recruiting such as sloganeering, public speaking and
writing in ULK, understanding our audience might just mean
understanding (or defining) their class, nation, and gender
intersections, and cultural background. There is always individual
variability, but even when trying to reach people on a group level, we
can have an understanding of where they’re coming from. We aim to speak
to and with our audience, not at them.
If we’re having 1-on-1 conversations, then helping them break through
their roadblocks might also include getting to know what’s important to
people on a persynal level. Then we can relate the growth back to their
persynal goals and show how the two are actually intertwined. This
author explains how ey takes this approach to show people that they’re
on the same team. This is much different than the “you’re wrong, if you
don’t agree with me, fuck you” approach that so many of our comrades
take in their recruiting.
When we know someone is interested in doing political work, but is
showing resistance or ambivalence, we can choose to dismiss them, or we
can go deeper. We can lay blame, or we can take responsibility.
Organizing is hard. We can try harder.
This comrade’s criticism that some movements are allowed or even
promoted because they don’t challenge imperialism is on point. Allowing
gay people to serve in the military is a good example of this; we won’t
fight to expand the imperialist military in any way. At the same time
allowing discrimination against felons is a way to target oppressed
nations while masking it behind a label of “criminal” activity. People
convicted of felonies are disproportionately New Afrikan or Chican@.
This is where our understanding of the bigger picture of prisons as a
tool of social control is critical. Oppressed nations are targeted for
imprisonment even though white people also get caught up in the prison
dragnet. This is most definitely a system of national oppression and a
way to handle the lumpen population which would otherwise be idle and
questioning its lack of economic opportunity – a perfect recipe for
politicization. In fact, the prison boom was a direct response to
revolutionary activity in the 1960s and 70s!