A smallish, but lively crowd took the streets (OK, pavements!) of Oxford yesterday to protest against cuts to social care in a "March of the Uninvisibles".
The march was organised by My Life My Choice and Oxford Save our Services "to show that we won’t let the media and the politicians make real people and their needs invisible while the rich get richer":
http://oxfordsos.org.uk/?p=1162
As these things often do, it started on Manzil Way where people had been gathering for awhile. I arrived at the last minute and joined the demo. There was a mix of people, some people I recognised from local anarchist and anti-cut groups, some from the Green Party and My Life My Choice, and quite a few I hadn't met before. I only saw two cops.
There seemed to be a concious effort on the part of the organisers to make sure (for want of a better word**) disabled people could take prominent roles in leading the demo; since the focus of the callout had been on increasing the visibility of those on the front lines of the cuts this seemed to make sense.
I suppose it raises questions about what assumptions we make based on someone's appearance, whether the disabled/non-disabled split is a false dichotomy, and so on, but personally I think it was much better to make an attempt to tackle these issues, however imperfect, than ignore them and allow dominant societal norms and behaviours to arise as the unquestioned default.
Not far into the demo, someone was loudly suggesting that we march in the road rather than on the pavement. At first a handful of people did so, but it didn't catch on and after a while they rejoined the rest on the pavement. I found out later that the decision not to take the road was based partly on the small size of the demo, but also on the fact that some 'more vulnerable' people in the demo didn't feel comfortable doing so.
Again, this raises questions: was the decision made by the crowd as a whole at Manzil Way, or by a few organisers? Could we, as a crowd, have supported more vulnerable people to feel safe taking the road? It seemed to me that there were enough of us to do so, and that it would have been a boost to the visibility that the demo aimed for.
After a march through town past huge crowds of curious tourists and summer school students, we arrived at Bonn Square, and finished off with an open mic session and a final burst of music from the samba band. As someone I chatted to pointed out, it was refreshing to attend a rally where almost all the speeches were from people fighting against cuts that directly affected them, not by bigwigs or politicians trying to score points.
A set of photos are here:
http://tiny.cc/p2m2h
...unfortunately the photographer seems to have chosen a corporate platform for hosting them; c'est la vie...
** It doesn't really make sense to use the word 'disabled' to describe people when most of the issues they face are a result of society's assumptions and norms. You could argue that in some senses it's society that's 'disabled':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability
http://oxfordsos.org.uk/?p=1162 As these things often do, it started on Manzil Way where people had been gathering for awhile. I arrived at the last minute and joined the demo. There was a mix of people, some people I recognised from local anarchist and anti-cut groups, some from the Green Party and My Life My Choice, and quite a few I hadn't met before. I only saw two cops.
There seemed to be a concious effort on the part of the organisers to make sure (for want of a better word**) disabled people could take prominent roles in leading the demo; since the focus of the callout had been on increasing the visibility of those on the front lines of the cuts this seemed to make sense.
I suppose it raises questions about what assumptions we make based on someone's appearance, whether the disabled/non-disabled split is a false dichotomy, and so on, but personally I think it was much better to make an attempt to tackle these issues, however imperfect, than ignore them and allow dominant societal norms and behaviours to arise as the unquestioned default.
Not far into the demo, someone was loudly suggesting that we march in the road rather than on the pavement. At first a handful of people did so, but it didn't catch on and after a while they rejoined the rest on the pavement. I found out later that the decision not to take the road was based partly on the small size of the demo, but also on the fact that some 'more vulnerable' people in the demo didn't feel comfortable doing so.
Again, this raises questions: was the decision made by the crowd as a whole at Manzil Way, or by a few organisers? Could we, as a crowd, have supported more vulnerable people to feel safe taking the road? It seemed to me that there were enough of us to do so, and that it would have been a boost to the visibility that the demo aimed for.
After a march through town past huge crowds of curious tourists and summer school students, we arrived at Bonn Square, and finished off with an open mic session and a final burst of music from the samba band. As someone I chatted to pointed out, it was refreshing to attend a rally where almost all the speeches were from people fighting against cuts that directly affected them, not by bigwigs or politicians trying to score points.
A set of photos are here:
http://tiny.cc/p2m2h ...unfortunately the photographer seems to have chosen a corporate platform for hosting them; c'est la vie...
** It doesn't really make sense to use the word 'disabled' to describe people when most of the issues they face are a result of society's assumptions and norms. You could argue that in some senses it's society that's 'disabled':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
more interesting notes on choice of language
24.07.2011 14:45
s42
Less language, more attitude
24.07.2011 19:57
most of the issues they face are a result of society's assumptions and norms
most of the issues we face are a result of society's assumptions and norms
Language can be used to exclude/oppress and create a sense of 'othering', or it can be used to try and be descriptive. But it's more important to understand where the person that is using certain language is coming from (e.g. their values), rather than get too caught up on the exact language they use. That's my view.
Hydrofoil
Watch out for Labour city councillors....
24.07.2011 21:10
...everyone needs to be aware of the cuts being imposed 'under the radar' by the Labour controlled City Council - it's hypocritical for Labour in any form, including City Councillors, to be present at rallies like this when they are cutting services across Oxford.
City Slicker
a successful march
26.07.2011 07:46
worse, though, it fails to recognise that the march was co-organised by disabled advocacy group (that's what they call themselves) My Life My Choice and Oxford SOS - 'the organisers put disabled people at the front of the march'? actually, the organisers were the disabled people at the front of the march!
it's a bit patronising to suggest that the 'vulnerable people' who didn't want to go in the road just weren't encouraged enough. it takes more than a bit of encouragement to overcome years of feeling physically at risk / unsafe in an arrogantly non-disabled world.
I suggest the author spend more time with My Life My Choice and maybe help to organise demos like this.
But most of all I would have liked to see the first article about the demo on Indymedia a supportive one, celebrating the march rather than picking faults with it (that actually just show up the failures in understanding of the author).
ms crip
response
26.07.2011 12:11
Specifically, on some level I was still making the assumption that most of the organising was done by SOS folks. Partly this was because I know several of them personally, so the organising work they did in the run-up to the demo was noticeable to me, whereas I don't have contact with folks from MLMC and wouldn't have seen all the work that they put into it. But when it comes down to it there was a clear element of prejudice in this assumption.
"...it fails to recognise that the march was co-organised by disabled advocacy group (that's what they call themselves) My Life My Choice and Oxford SOS..."
Well, I put near at the top of the article that the march was co-organised by MLMC and SOS; but at a deeper level you're right, I did fail to grasp this fully. I apologise.
"...'the organisers put disabled people at the front of the march'? actually, the organisers were the disabled people at the front of the march!..."
I wrote: There seemed to be a concious effort on the part of the organisers to make sure (for want of a better word**) disabled people could take prominent roles in leading the demo...
Look, this was based on overhearing an organiser asking the samba band to stay near the back of the demo to make sure they didn't steal the limelight. In that sense what I wrote seemed accurate when I wrote it. But it was misinformed and misleading. Like you said it fails to acknowledge how many of the folks with disabilities at the front *were* organisers.
"it's a bit patronising to suggest that the 'vulnerable people' who didn't want to go in the road just weren't encouraged enough. it takes more than a bit of encouragement to overcome years of feeling physically at risk / unsafe in an arrogantly non-disabled world."
I wrote:
"Could we, as a crowd, have supported more vulnerable people to feel safe taking the road? It seemed to me that there were enough of us to do so..."
First of all, that was genuinely intended as a question: *Could we* have supported people to take the road? I would want the answer to come from those who felt unsafe (once others had a chance to explain what types of support they were offering) and I would have respected their decision. But I never got the chance to speak directly to the people who felt unsafe taking the road, and I never got to find out whether the whole group discussed the issue or whether a few people made the decision on behalf of all of us.
Secondly, the "support" I was thinking of would not be merely encouragement. I was thinking in terms of physically standing alongside people, keeping eyes peeled for dangerous or arsey drivers, being ready to calm them down and being ready to stand in front of vehicles etc etc. In short, pro-active physical solidarity, not just words of encouragement.
It makes sense that without much experience of having a disability I would underestimate how difficult it would be. I'm sorry for my ignorance on this point.
All I actually wanted was a chance to discuss it with everyone, to have a chance to offer physical solidarity and to see what we as a crowd working together could be capable of. I still don't know, arriving late to the start of the demo as I did, how the decision was made and who was included in making it. Can someone fill in this detail?
"I suggest the author spend more time with My Life My Choice and maybe help to organise demos like this."
That would be a good way for me to unlearn some of my prejudices. At the moment I don't feel like I have time or energy to get involved in another group but I'll think about it.
"But most of all I would have liked to see the first article about the demo on Indymedia a supportive one, celebrating the march rather than picking faults with it (that actually just show up the failures in understanding of the author)."
Fair point. I wrote the article from my personal perspective, apparently with some ignorance of the perspectives of people with disabilities.
All I can add is that indymedia is based on open publishing; anyone can write a report from their own perspective. If you were unsatisfied with mine, you could write one yourself too. I don't mean that as a point-scoring way to deflect criticism; it's still perfectly valid for you to point out the flaws in mine. But if you have time to do so, I think it'd be a valuable contribution.
s42