Extinction Rebellion

Excellent points and article, but too much of a long read for me. I got the point in the first three paragraphs, but probably because I already knew it all.

Close friend of mine and I have always had this opinion, the only people that can afford to live like bums are the rich and the white. His cousin travels around in a converted transit van and lives as a modern stoner hippy. His parents moved from UK to South France when they bough a vinyard. He only goes home when he needs to top up his bank balance.

The race issue has been a criticism from the start.

My assumption has been that the founders know what they're doing - they're not new to this. But whether it's calculated or not, doesn't make so much difference.

My take is that yes, the criticisms are true - the movement is largely white, the enthusiastic interactions with law and order, the clear privilege of many taking part. The oddly non-political "welcome all" stance.

Yes there have been badly pitched statements of all kinds - but it's a decentralised movement, anyone can use the name and logo and speak as XR. For every off-pitch there's a reminder that the crisis is already here and affecting disproportionately the global south. There's a reminder that what is happening now and in the future will disproportionately affect the poor.

But I also see it as the beauty and success of the movement - appealing directly to people who are not "activists", who are not "eco-warriors", who are not "green" or "socialist" or really who care that much about what's happening to other people across the world. Speaking directly to them and getting them active and engaged. Get these people on the streets, facing arrest, working their networks, and essentially, using whatever form of privilege they have to amplify this noise. Outside of a few major cities, the UK is overwhelmingly white. There's no point reducing your effectiveness at communicating with and convincing this majority of people to act and engage, because you want to ensure you're getting it all in there at the beginning. Appeal to the gut/heart whatever. The rest comes. It's climate justice by stealth. If the way to make people care is to show them polar bears and tigers, because they don't get emotional about the hardships of poor brown people, fuck it, do that. If you need to talk about their grandchildren - specifically theirs - well, it works. People don't care so much for other people's children. It's about putting those with more privilege on the front line to take the place of those who historically have borne the brunt. Some people might not be aware that's their role - but a lot are. A lot of people are like "I'm white/middle-class/no dependents (delete as applicable) - if not me, who."

One of the first sub-groups was black XR. I can't remember its official name. As the local action groups have taken over, these minority groups seem to have faded from view, but I'm not really close enough to know. It's not obvious if non-white voices are a key part of the participation and decision-making. If they're not, it's a valid criticism. Even if they are, it's not obvious enough.
The obvious criticism is that XR has an image problem: it's off-putting to people of colour, among others. But that same image is part of its success - it helps huge numbers of people feel like it's for them.

In April I read a piece by someone who criticised XR on grounds of not being enough about climate justice, the poor and/or non-white voice - it was a piece essentially anti-XR, but pro- Green New Deal. IMO things like XR are important for creating mainstream social and political conditions in which the Green New Deals have a chance.

(@rhb sorry I hit reply on the wrong one.)