Log in

No account? Create an account
A good post about activism... - John [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

A good post about activism... [Apr. 30th, 2016|11:11 am]
In an ADHD support forum, I would sometimes have discussions with people are angry that doctors don't do anything but give kids medications. (Well... they didn't say "medication" - they always said "Ritalin". At the time there were at least four different front-line meds for ADHD but Ritalin was and remains the one that's name-ganked.)

(PSA: while they used to believe that children grew out of ADHD, it's more likely that the symptoms and signs changed - and for some adults, coping skills were enough, and for others, they were decreed to have problems for other reasons, because grown-ups clearly didn't have ADHD, because it was a childhood issue, because children have it, not adults. I'm sorry - but that really does seem to be the "logic" (technically "reasoning") they used.)

People had all kinds of ideas of what doctors should do. Encourage children in sports! Meditation! Meaningful Spiritual Practices! Focusing Exercises! Careful Habit Creation!

Because, yeah!!! Doctors get to be responsible for children and their upbringing 24x7, from the moment the mommy doctor gives birth... uh... wait, no, that's the *parents.

My argument was, no, doctors should work their magic where they could, and that was the physical, and that meant they should restrict themselves to prescribing medications and providing advice about other well established treatments, while noting that other methods may work too. A doctor who pooh poohs the idea of meditation, rather than merely pointing out that it's not proven to work - but it seems like a reasonable idea - deserves to be admonished, at the least.

(I was going to state that as "doctors should fight their battles on the field that they are knowledgeable" - and the thought jumped into my head that violent metaphors aren't apt here, and are probably far too overused.)

Anyway: I don't know how you, the reader, might feel about the Black Lives Matter movement, but I consider this post spot-on:

What it's saying is, some people exist to build a fire, and hold people's feet to it, to try to force action. Other people - and good, wonderful, effective people like a community organizer named Barack Obama - should then try to make things happen. And neither side is *wrong*. A younger Obama wasn't wrong for compromising and working the art of the possible, and Black Lives Matter aren't wrong for being angry and demanding.

The one thing I will say is: they do need to be tightly controlled and disciplined (in the sense of ensuring no one in the organization is committing actions of violence or property destruction)... but they don't need to be quiet, or calm, or compromise. Anger is good, if kept in check.

I do think that it's important for activists to be gracious when winning, of course, even if the win is minor. Not *too* gracious - but enough to let the people who fought on your side know that, while it wasn't *enough*, you do appreciate the efforts they made, especially if sacrifices were made.

Anyway: there's lots of work to be done, and I firmly agree that we should be careful not to disagree with someone who's chosen an acceptable job to do - even if it doesn't fit our notions of how the overall project will be completed.