In preparation for December 23, let's look more deeply at this . . . .
Three related issues
|The image for the NYC "Peace and|
the Planet" rally perfectly expresses
the multi-dimensional nature of the
mass mobilization(s) being undertaken.
On the one hand, there are plenty of reasons that we should all be able to agree to cooperate around these issues.
In addition, there are grounds to say that it is foolish to try to postpone any of them; they are all urgent, and they all must proceed without delay.
On the other hand, successful mass action is conditioned on what large number of people are able to seize upon at once, and be highly motivated about.
How can we expect our 2015 mass mobilizations to address all three without losing some of their crispness.
Question 1: Are we speaking clearly enough about risk?
I think we can all agree that the big problem we are up against is that the vast majority of people underestimate risk: risk of nuclear annihilation, risk of radiation poisoning, risk of climate crisis.
Somewhat amazingly, the world has started to take the risk of climate crisis seriously.
I wonder: aren't we still failing to make it clear to the vast majority of people that
* the climate crisis is a clear risk --
causality is certain -- and is urgent
* the risk of radiation poisoning is less clear to most people --
but if anything it is even more imminent and urgent
* the risk of nuclear annihilation is even less clear to most people --
out of sight, out of mind -- but in terms of actual catastrophic, irreversible
consequences -- it is the most imminent and urgent of the three
If this is true, what does it imply for our priorities in our 2015 mass mobilization?
|U.S. Government (NOAA) graphic shows cross-pacific connections|
Question 2: Are we doing enough to build our story?
In particular, I am wondering if we should be doing more to emphasize that the kind of radiation poisoning that is being experienced right now in Fukushima illustrates before our eyes one of the horrible humanitarian consequences associated with nuclear weapon use.
I wonder if there are other strong points of interrelationship that we need to explain.
Question 3: How do we tell our story most effectively?
With a highly dispersed movement, how do we work together to try out the many possible ways of explaining this story, and arriving at the way(s) that have maximum impact?
What are your comments on this?