This past winter, I wrote an op-ed for The Spec originally entitled 'The 8-Ball and The Curve: Why Are We Always Behind One or The Other?' I followed it up with a five-part series on this blog starting here. It dealt with how we might move to prevent this kind of situation, one currently being seen in the above protest on June 19th. As a final offering here, I should note this post, 'Elements at Play at 100 Main Street West', dealing with aspects of the discussion or those informing it.
For the record: I believe Tuesday's protest is necessary. It has the potential to loudly declare the residents of Hamilton's dissatisfaction, disapproval and frustration with both the HWDSB's relocation from downtown to the Upper City to the closings of schools across The Greater Amalgamated City of Hamilton. To have gone quietly into the night, grumbling and kicking at the dirt would have been entirely inappropriate, showing either heightened apathy, or a complete detachment from the realities we're moving through...and sizeable denial. So I'm glad for this event, I'm glad for the Facebook group, I'm glad that there's grassroots activism going on...
However, I had a hard time watching the video. In fact, I had to break it up into several segments to get through it. Yes, it made me sad. Yes, I was affected. But not because the visuals or message elicited a desire to join the protest and add to the (expected) clamour. I felt what I felt because of everything I mentioned at the beginning of this post: the sadness of seeing yet another example of we, the people, being behind the curve and then reacting in a way that actually reinforces our passive role in our own governance.
There's no question that Hamiltonians, that Ontarians should be protesting school closings. I agree with the sentiments about schools being fundamental elements of 'community', that they determine the very livability of our neighbourhoods. I've been heartened by the 'We Need 3' movement to protect one community's elementary schools. What we're seeing is precisely what I have been musing about in the background for almost a year now. (I never claimed to be a wizened veteran.)
But as much as I'm on board with the protesting, I'm equally feeling that a) we/those-who-are-energized are seemingly waaaay too caught up in hyperbole, in messages that stir the emotions, accomplish a visceral reaction by way of sympathetic jingoism, b) we seem more attached to wanting to feel enraged at the situation than actually developing understanding of the contributing factors (I know this from some pretty extensive observations combined as well as personal experiences) and then using this to promote positive dialogue, and c) that by making this noise (no matter how loud it ends up being) at this phase of the game (please refer to the originally-cited op-ed), we're actually continuing the tradition of an ineffective role at the governance table. It's admirable, it's noble, it speaks a little about community activism, but it's not really where the game must be played in order for genuine progress to be made.
Yes, this is a start. Yes, this could well lead to another level of engagement and participation, one that might just shift the paradigm so that instead of protesting right before staff are being moved to temporary locations, right before a building's going to be demolished, right before a new development's construction is begun, right before school properties are being mothballed leading up to presumed off-loading, that we're actual partners in the stewardship of our own ongoing welfare. I want that to be the case, I want that change to happen, I want us to get from behind both the 8-ball and the curve and feel what the obverse is.
But my gut reaction to the video was 'Oh, no; not again...' And with just 18 'Likes' and 10 'Talking about this' on the Facebook group mere days from the event, it's pretty hard not to feel cynical in a city long mired in a state of cynicism-saturation.
M Adrian Brassington
Battles like this tend to build slowly and quietly over months and years as both sides meet, consult and negotiate. Eventually, this breaks down and both sides go ahead with unilateral action. Governments go ahead, and citizens get in the way with signs. Inevitably, at this point, people who've been paying next to no attention so far start demanding to know why dissidents only started raising a fuss that late in the game.
ReplyDeleteAt virtually every protest I've ever witnessed, I've seen this dynamic play out. And at every one, from business parks to school closures to the Red Hill Valley Parkway (in which civil action had been going on for fifty years).
After this cycle runs through a few times, people begin to organize outside of immediate threats. Then, next time something like this happens, instead of starting anew, protests simply pick up where they left off. That's the kind of widespread popular engagement we need, but it has to grow from tiny steps like this.
Thanks for the informed comment. I bow to your experience as to how 'this' fits into the bigger scheme.
ReplyDeleteBut I do believe there is a difference between protesting and what's required on the engagement level... In fact, they're two related dialects, connected, but different. And I suspect that while there is spillover, I don't believe that what makes a protestor is necessarily going to be found in an active neighbourhood resident...or vice versa.
I believe that that in the main, on the scale I've been yammering on about here, at THH and HNA, that the thrust for 'core' for efforts such as this has to be on the NA level, not the cadre-of-protest level.
Maybe we should do a video interview on this topic...?