Read Women discussion

This is the thread for our May non-fiction read. The theme was 'Civil Rights/Social Justice' and we will be reading Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement by Angela Y. Davis.

Freedom Is a Constant Struggle (from Goodreads)

In these newly collected essays, interviews, and speeches, world-renowned activist and scholar Angela Y. Davis illuminates the connections between struggles against state violence and oppression throughout history and around the world.
Reflecting on the importance of black feminism, intersectionality, and prison abolitionism for today's struggles, Davis discusses the legacies of previous liberation struggles, from the Black Freedom Movement to the South African anti-Apartheid movement. She highlights connections and analyzes today's struggles against state terror, from Ferguson to Palestine.
Facing a world of outrageous injustice, Davis challenges us to imagine and build the movement for human liberation. And in doing so, she reminds us that "Freedom is a constant struggle."

Angela Y. Davis (from Goodreads)

You may not need an introduction to Angela Davis - we read her in August, 2018. Here is a link to our group discussion of Women, Race, and Class.

Angela Yvonne Davis is an American political activist, scholar, and author. She emerged as a nationally prominent activist and radical in the 1960s, as a leader of the Communist Party USA, and had close relations with the Black Panther Party through her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement despite never being an official member of the party. Prisoner rights have been among her continuing interests; she is the founder of Critical Resistance, an organization working to abolish the prison-industrial complex. She is a retired professor with the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and is the former director of the university's Feminist Studies department.
Her research interests are in feminism, African American studies, critical theory, Marxism, popular music, social consciousness, and the philosophy and history of punishment and prisons. Her membership in the Communist Party led to Ronald Reagan's request in 1969 to have her barred from teaching at any university in the State of California. She was tried and acquitted of suspected involvement in the Soledad brothers' August 1970 abduction and murder of Judge Harold Haley in Marin County, California. She was twice a candidate for Vice President on the Communist Party USA ticket during the 1980s.

Liesl to lead.

Thanks for the introduction Anita. I've started this and am currently in Chapter 3. It is very easy reading as it is extremely conversational. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's comments.

So far the discussion is concentrating on the importance of civil movements as a means of achieving change. My one criticism is regarding Davis' view of prison abolishment. I can understand that the prison system is not perfect and no doubt requires improvement. I think it is a very Utopian idea to believe that prisons are, or ever will be, completely unnecessary. I'm keeping an open mind at the moment to see where this all leads.

Kristin wrote: "Unfortunately, I don't think I will be able to get to this one this month, but it is a book I am very interested in reading. I hope you don't mind me following along anyway :-D"

The more the merrier, Kristin. The great thing about these works is that we cover topics that you can join in on without having read the book in question.

I purchased a kindle copy so after I finish my current book I'll be joining this one.

Liesl wrote: "My one criticism is regarding Davis' view of prison abolishment. I can understand that the prison system is not perfect and no doubt requires improvement. I think it is a very Utopian idea to believe that prisons are, or ever will be, completely unnecessary. I'm keeping an open mind at the moment to see where this all leads. ..."

I, too, just finished reading Chapter 3.

I think the point she is making is that we need to place prisons in a larger framework by exploring why people commit crimes in the first place and to address the causes that led them to commit the crimes.

For example, because a disproportionate number of people of color are in prison, we need to address racism. Because a large number of inmates are illiterate, we need to address the education system. Because a large number of inmates have mental health issues, we need to address health care, etc. etc.

If I understand her correctly, the basic premise of her argument is that if we address the systemic problems in society, we may no longer have a need for prisons.

I hope someone will correct me if I have misunderstood her argument.

Tamara wrote: If I understand her correctly, the basic premise of her argument is that if we address the systemic problems in society, we may no longer have a need for prisons."

I do think that is the premise of her argument and as I said there is always room for improvement in our law enforcement systems. Addressing these issues would no doubt reduce, perhaps even significantly, the number of inmates and therefore the number of prisons needed. However, I still feel that it is naive to imagine that prisons will no longer be necessary.

This could also be a cultural issue. In Chapter 5, she mentions that there are 2.5 million people in US prisons and that is 25% of the world's incarcerated population. I'm not American so it is possible that I have a different view of the prison system.

Just bought the audiobook. Looking forward to start ^-^

One of the threads that continuously arises throughout the various discussions and speeches is the idea of intersectionality of issues. For example, when talking about the issue of the police shooting in Ferguson, Davis talks about the militarisation of the police in the US which allows her to connect this issue with the way that Israel are policing the Palestinian people.

The purpose of this is to get people to care about other issues. It is an interesting idea. I wonder to what extent it works at the ground level (I mean the average person)? Does it motivate people to get involved in protesting the other issues? Or are you diluting your own issue by using your opportunity to talk about additional issues?

What do you think about this intersectionality?

Throughout the book, Davis is arguing for the importance of the Collective effort in achieving change.

Chapter 4 is a speech that Davis gave on Palestine, G4S and the Prison-Industrial Complex. In the introduction to her speech, Davis talks about Nelson Mandela not wanting to be individualised as a saint but preferring to be included amongst a collective group of those who protested apartheid.

In Chapter 5, she makes the point that it is not leaders that change things but ordinary people.

During a speech given in St Louis, Missouri (Chapter 7) she commends the people who protested the shooting in Ferguson saying that "your movement announced that we do not need the traditional, recognisable Black male charismatic leader".

I've always understood that any movement, just like any Corporation or Government, does not function because of one person. There are always more people working in the background. The leader is a focal point that allows a unified message to go out.

Why do you think it is so important for Davis to make this point?

Another interesting point that recurs throughout the book is the idea that change does not take place at one particular moment in time, or because of legislative change. For example, Davis argues that the abolition of slavery did not end the issue of racism as it did not provide jobs, health care, or education.

It is a starting point and the momentum needs to continue. I found it interesting that she mentions that poor white children in the South actually obtained education through the struggles of Black people who wanted to be educated following the Civil War. I was surprised to learn that the efforts of the Black people were overturned in 1877 and erased from historical record. It took another 100 years for them to win that right again.

Davis connects the issue of Marriage Equality with this discussion.

Like many people, I feel uncomfortable seeing the increasing militarisation of Police (all around the world not just in the US). However, with the increase in terrorist attacks and the arming of criminals with automatic weapons, I wonder what alternative there really is. While it is true that the Police are there to Protect and to Serve, we cannot leave them unprotected either.

In Chapter 6, Davis talks about the labelling of Assata Shakur as a terrorist. She suggests that labelling people who challenge the norm as terrorists is a means to justify the increase in arming the police and treating immigrants as criminals.

I don't know anything about the history of Assata Shakur so it is impossible for me to know if labelling her a terrorist is fair/unfair. I am sure there is racial profiling and also errors in information gathering that lead to people being unfairly labelled as terrorists but I think that is a minority of cases rather than the majority of them.

How did you feel reading Chapter 6?

I found Chapter 9 which is titled "Political Activism and Protest from the 1960s to the Age of Obama" to be the most interesting in the book.

While speaking about the solidarity generated in all parts of the world for Black Americans, Davis mentioned the Kissing Case from the 1950s. This was where a 6 year old black boy kissed a white girl he was playing with. He was arrested on Attempted Rape charges and was ultimately freed because of media attention generated in Europe. Can you imagine this? Charging a 6 year old boy with Attempted Rape because of an innocent kiss?

"It made me feel that we have indeed come a long way, but at the same time we have regressed so much. So how do you address the contradiction of progress and regression at the very same time?".

Here Davis was speaking about how she felt when she visited the monument to Dr Martin Luther King after attending the Second Inauguration of Obama. I thought it was beautifully said. I also felt that it could apply to many other aspects of life, particularly Feminist issues.

Also in Chapter 9, Davis quotes William Faulkner: "The past is never dead. It's not even past" and then she said "we live with the ghosts of our past".

This made me think of "Beloved" by Toni Morrison.

Chapter 10 is a speech that Davis gave in Turkey titled "Transnational Solidarities".

Like all of the discussions and speeches in this book, the themes of Collective Effort, the Intersectionality and connectivity of histories, the militarisation of law enforcement, Assata Shakur, and G4S are covered.

Davis talks about Carceral Feminism during this speech. This is apparently feminism that calls for the criminalisation and incarceration of those who engage in gender violence. She says that this does the work of the State rather than solving the problem of sexual violence.

Further on in the speech she claims that Intimate Violence (sexual assault, sexual harrassment) is not unconnected to state violence: "Where do the perpetrators learn how to engage in the practices of violence? Who teaches them that violence is okay?"

I was wondering how everyone feels about this?

Overall, I found that the book gave an interesting look into world of Activism. Reading these speeches in the confines of a book allows you to see the repetition of themes that an activist utilises in their platforms.

I felt that one detraction of the speech format of the book is that it often gives only a superficial glimpse of the themes being discussed rather than providing a detailed discussion of their ideas and solutions for these issues.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you all thought of it.

It’s funny because I had a very different reaction to the book.

I loved the passion and commitment in her voice. Her arguments were thought-provoking. I loved how she jumped from different struggles in one corner of the world to another. I agree that she didn’t go into detail in any of them but simply mentioned them in passing. But I think that was intentional. I think her point was to plant the seed of connectivity between the struggles and urge her audience/reader to do further research to learn the specifics of each struggle. She connected the dots and left it up to us to explore the nature of the connection.

The only criticism I have of the book is the repetition of ideas and examples. I think that can be justified because she was speaking to different audiences at different times and in different locations. But I loved her arguments.

I think what she said about the prison industrial complex was spot on. I loved the fact she encouraged us to view different struggles throughout the world through the same set of lenses, i.e., to see the connections, and to urge us to recognize that a struggle happening on the other side of the world is connected to our struggle. And I loved what she said about feminism—that it is not just about the intersectionality of identities but also about the intersectionality of struggles.

It was a powerful book. And I'm glad we did it as a group read because I had not heard of it before.

Here’s my review in case any are interested: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Thanks.

Tamara wrote: "It’s funny because I had a very different reaction to the book.

I loved the passion and commitment in her voice.... I loved how she jumped from different struggles in one corner of the world to another..."

I am glad that you enjoyed this. I think the repetition is just more obvious because the speeches are joined together in one book. They were given over a number of years at various different locations so I am sure that it didn't seem like a repetition to her audiences.

Thanks, Liesl.
I think you're right about the repetition.

Have just finished chapter 3 so will read comments about later chapters/whole book later.

Enjoying it so far with reservations - more about the format than the content. Three chapters of 'interviews' in a row is just a really strange way to start a book. I think it needed a more substantive chapter/speech by Davis a lot earlier than it seems to be giving one. I feel I would have liked to get to 'know' the Author and the main thrust of her arguments in her own words a bit more before reading someone else dig into it by asking her questions about them.

(Now I 'know' Angela Davis from her other works but if you were coming in without knowing much about her, her history, or her politics, it would be really disjointed.)

Louise wrote: "Three chapters of 'interviews' in a row is just a really strange way to start a book. I think it needed a more substantive chapter/speech by Davis a lot earlier than it seems to be giving one..."

That is a good point. It might have been better to locate at least one of the speeches directly after the Introduction. That way, in the discussion they could have skipped over some of the repetition of the issues covered in the speeches and discussed those issues more deeply.

Have now read chapters 4 and 5. Both speeches that, to me, would have made a far better chapter 1 and 2.

Editing of the book aside though, I'm finding it very interesting. I like the focus on movements rather than on 'great men'/leaders, which is a really reductive way at looking at history that erases the contributions of ordinary (and normally marginalised) people.

Obviously great men (and women!) did lead movements and were hugely inspiring, but I think it needs to be recognised more that they often grew out of the movement giving them a voice rather than their voice inpiring the movement (though not always). I think it's hugely inspiring to see that change (not all change of course) can come out of enough ordinary people simply deciding that enough is enough.

And, of course, that is what Davis is trying to do here - inspire other people to take a stand who might have at one point though 'what can I as one person really do?'. These were writen as speeches to call ordinary people to a political action, not as essays on the history of the movement.

I’ve just finished Chapter 8 and am enjoying the book so far. I agree with previous comments about repetition in the book, however as also previously mentioned, this is more likely due to the format of the book rather than of the content itself.

I agree with the concept of interconnectedness between issues of race, gender and incarceration. At the heart of it is the imbalance of power created and reinforced by structures (usually) put in place historically through violent means.

A recurring idea throughout the book is that the prison industrial complex can be abolished. Perhaps this is a reflection of my inability to grasp the author’s vision, but I disagree with this idea. Sure, if we address societal and structural issues surrounding race, gender, power, violence then the need for incarceration could potentially diminish to almost nothing. However, and perhaps I’m mistaken in thinking this, but in my mind aren’t there also those who are genetically predisposed to violence (i.e. violent psycopathic tendencies) who require at the very least some form of restricted access to the general population? This is why I mostly agree, but fundamentally disagree with the author on this point.

I particularly enjoyed the focus on “leaders” of historical movements being viewed as a product of the movement itself rather than “leading” the movement. It shattered a lot of unchallenged assumptions I held about historical figures, which I generally consider a positive thing.

I also enjoyed the idea of feminism being used as a lens to make connections between seemingly disparate ideas as well as a lens to examine what we categorise and group together and why we do so.

Overall, a pretty educational read and I’m looking forward to reading the rest of it.

Eunice wrote: "However, and perhaps I’m mistaken in thinking this, but in my mind aren’t there also those who are genetically predisposed to violence (i.e. violent psycopathic tendencies) who require at the very least some form of restricted access to the general population? This is why I mostly agree, but fundamentally disagree with the author on this point..."

Perhaps I misread her, but I didn't think she was suggesting that everyone who has committed a crime should be turned loose on the general population. I think she was saying we need to think about what causes criminal activity. As you noted, if we address structural inequities in society, the numbers of people needing incarceration will diminish considerably.

But there will always be those people who have pathological tendencies toward violence and/or who are clinically insane. Since they pose a threat to society, they cannot be turned loose. But their "incarceration" would not be in a prison, per se, but in some kind of mental health facility. In other words, the nature of prisons as they currently exist would cease to exist.

I think that's what she means, but maybe I misunderstood her.

I learned many things but I was frustrated by the format of the book. I found it repetitive and scattered. I wished there was more depth in each of the subjects addressed. Any recommendations for further in depth reads?

The most impressive idea I learned from the book is the possibility to abolish incarceration as mean of punishment. I like the idea that society will benefit more from people who engage in restorative justice or similar ways of repairing the damage they caused.

Eunice wrote: "I’ve just finished Chapter 8 and am enjoying the book so far. I agree with previous comments about repetition in the book, however as also previously mentioned, this is more likely due to the forma..."

Glad you are enjoying the book. With regards to the prison abolition, I felt the same as you. Obviously this is where the lack of depth becomes an issue because if you are going to suggest the abolition of prisons, then you need to outline your alternatives for people that are generally a threat to society. Not everyone who commits a crime belongs in a mental health facility.

Tamara wrote: "Perhaps I misread her, but I didn't think she was suggesting that everyone who has committed a crime should be turned loose on the general population.."

For me, the use of the term "abolition of prisons" suggests the eradication of the system of incarcerating criminals. If she only wanted us to consider the causes of criminality then she would be talking about investigating those causes and redressing the inequities that contribute to some criminal activity. Certainly, her discussion about her reasons for wanting prisons abolished was focused on inequities that lead to incarceration but it is the constant repetition of the concept of abolition that I felt uncomfortable about.

I wondered whether her extreme attitude on this matter might have been influenced by her own experience.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here but there are lots of people who grow up in the same social environments as the people incarcerated and they do not commit crimes. That would suggest that it is not solely the environment or inequities that lead to criminal activity.

We are just over the half-way mark for the month. A lot of comment has been made about repetition, and some comment about lack of depth. These have been comments that have come up in other Non-fiction reads when they have been collations of Essays, Speeches or Lectures.

Do you think that reading these collations is helpful to you? Or would you prefer to delve into a more traditionally structured non-fiction read that provides background, research, consequences and, perhaps even, suggested solutions?

What do you think is the intended audience for a work like this?

Just started all. I will keep in mind the compilation makes it seem redundant, also hopefully this can help hammer some theories and themes home though. In the very first interview essay she comments on how the movement as a whole is what is important as opposed to the individual heroes, and how entities try to bring an individual to the forefront so that they can have a specific someone to vilify, essentially. She also commented on abolition of the prison system as a form of modern slavery. She equates the system with slavery which is why she chooses the word abolition.

Her thoughts and words come off as well thought on and deliberate - and while she acknowledges that there needs to be systemwide reform across multiple avenues in order to achieve a greater goal - such as the abolition of the prison system, I wonder if any means and avenues are included in this book. I wonder if that is where the impression of lack of depth comes from?

Anita wrote: "Just started all. I will keep in mind the compilation makes it seem redundant, also hopefully this can help hammer some theories and themes home though. In the very first interview essay she commen..."

Looking forward to more of your thoughts. I definitely think it is the lack of solutions or ideas for addressing the failings of systems that give the perception that this book is not what was expected.

I used the term "lack of depth" to summarise some of the comments about the book to date and now that I look at it I feel hesitant about that term because it might be applied to her contemplation/understanding of issues which was not my intention. I agree with your description of Davis' thoughts and words being "thought on and deliberate".

Unlike a more traditionally structured non-fiction work, a speech or lecture does not allow the time for expansive contemplation of issues, analysis of data or pondering about solutions or alternatives. I think this is where the sensation of "lack of depth" comes from: the frustration of repeatedly being made aware of a problem without the proffering of any solutions or alternatives.

Perhaps this is where Louise's point about the placement of the interviews could have improved the book. If they had located one about half-way through the book and the other towards the end of it, they could have discussed solutions or research.

Editing is everything. The intro promises in depth essays written by Davis to detail specific topics, and I'm sure these should make all the difference to the reader's experience of the whole work.

As it is, it's taken me a few interviews to kind of see that she really does want her work to be about a global movement of economic equality - and even that she sees these smaller hot topic movements (like Ferguson or Occupy) as momentous waves to push harder for actual change with legislature or administrative laws (for example how cops are trained to interact with the public, etc.). I can see how trying to cover global inequality in a couple hundred pages would leave the work with a topical feel.

However, I'm still very much enjoying the read. Angela Davis always (in my 2 book experience with her) brings me a new perspective and after reading so many feminist and racial texts it is always refreshing. For example, we've all heard intersectionality or bust for the past few years, however it had just become something people say on online forums when they're pointing out how some feminist failed to champion their specific cause. I've found it used as a divisive tool rather than a unifying one.

Davis points out that intersectionality is a means to draw someone without a dog in the fight to a specific movement by connecting them personally to the people who are actually affected. Her Palestinian activism is a perfect example as she explains many people don't know the history and the incidents that lead up to the need for a unifying movement - it's true, i'm absolutely resistant to forming an opinion either way because of my ignorance - and how she needs to open doors and pathways through intersectionality. It isn't readily apparent from reading the text, but she's pointed out how US police tactics have been learned from Israeli military tactics used against Palestinian civilians. Again, US police have learned how to interact with civilians from a military that is actively waging war. What does that say about their mission mentality and their purpose when they go out onto the streets of America?

I think it's also important to remember that she chose as her ultimate platform the Communist Party, in terms of understanding her end game goals.

Anita wrote: "The intro promises in depth essays written by Davis to detail specific topics, and I'm sure these should make all the difference to the reader's experience of the whole work...."

I don't remember any in-depth essays. After the introductory interviews, I only recall speeches. I agree that in-depth essays that detail specific topics would have improved this.

"US police have learned how to interact with civilians from a military that is actively waging war. What does that say about their mission mentality and their purpose when they go out onto the streets of America?"

It seems completely out of step with the mission of any police force to go out on the street waging war. Their mission is to protect and to serve. However, as I mentioned in an earlier post, this issue has become complicated as a result of terrorism and, in the US, the access of criminals to automatic weapons. I think that is an area that needs to be worked on because you can't leave the police unprotected but you also can't have them believing that they are enforcers rather than protectors.

I've come across some other books that Davis has written on the issue of the abolition of the prison system in case any of you are interested in some further reading on the matter.

If you like the style of this book with its speeches and interviews, you have:

1. Abolition Democracy: Beyond Prisons, Torture, and Empire which was published in 2005 and contains interviews with Davis on the matter. It was published after the news of the torture of prisoners by the US in the Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 but also covers the general issue of the prison system in the US.

2. Prisons and American History: Four Lectures which was published in 2016.

If you prefer the more traditional non-fiction work with research and suggestions for solutions there is Are Prisons Obsolete? which was published in 2003.

If I get a chance at some point, I might try to get a hold of the last one as I prefer that style of work and I would be interested to read her views on solutions.

While I was researching the prison abolition issue, I came across some articles about the rescinding of an award that Davis was due to receive in January this year. I'm attaching a link to a later article from the Huffington Post where the award is being re-offered to her.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/angela...

I thought this was quite relevant to our discussions because it seems as if the initial decision to rescind the award was due to her activism with respect to Palestine.

Thanks for those references Liesl. I will check them out to see if any of them catch my eye.

Thank you for sharing those books and the article Liesl.

I find myself running out of reading time these days, so I'm a bit behind. Hope to get some hours in and finish up this week

We've arrived at the end of the month. Angela Y Davis is an admirable woman. I find it both inspiring and humbling to read about her dedication to the Freedom movement.

How you feel about this particular book may depend upon the style of non-fiction text that you prefer reading. Like other collection works that we have read, I think this is a good introduction work.... in this particular case to the issues of activism and various Freedom movements. After that, if you are interested in educating yourself further you might look for something with information about research and alternative solutions.

I'd like to thank everyone that shared their thoughts as they read this. I find it healthy to see how other people engage with a text. It challenges you to reconsider your own conclusions.

Anita wrote: "Thank you for sharing those books and the article Liesl.

I find myself running out of reading time these days, so I'm a bit behind. Hope to get some hours in and finish up this week"

I was a little surprised when I came across this article. It feels as if there is something they are not saying. I am certain they would have researched her work before choosing her as a recipient in the first place. So it seems really odd that they only discovered the Palestinian issue after offering her the award. More likely they received some pressure to rescind the award .... and then they received so much backlash for it, they had to go back and re-offer the award. Very embarrassing for them.