>I don't recall any authoritarianism in any of the A16 meetings. There were
>process problems that were caused by facilitators trying to keep the meeting
>below two hours in length. Another problem was communication, which was
>caused by activists in a certain group keeping mum about plans. This was
>necessary so that we weren't showing our deck of cards to the cops. There
>wasn't that much to hide from the cops, but it was important to keep some
>element of surprise.
I understand security needs ("a certain group keeping mum about plans"), but this is a tricky question. The problem of vanguardism (a select few in the know & the rest out of the loop) originated in security needs.
>I understand what you are saying about long meetings. I think a way to remedy
>this situation is for those of us who are working people (and usually older)
>to keep challenging younger activists on this.
I agree with you on this one.
>I don't see how this relates to race. This is an activist style that needs to
>be changed.
The relationship between organizing style and race isn't simple. But I'm really speaking from local experience here. The severest criticism of consensus-style meetings (and inability of young white activists to make up their minds & their enjoyment of voicing their individual opinions for the sake of voicing them, whether or not the opinions in question are directly related to the topic at hand) came from the main organizer of the Afrikan Student Union -- the most activist org on campus. Young white activists are more individualist than young black activists, even if we limit our discussion to youths.
Yoshie