Activism Books

This is a stapled package of 25 sheets of typing paper and is VERY brief report. If you just need a list of dates (between 1971 and 1980) and places, it is adequate for a low price. Has several charts and grafts.

Patricia Marchak has set out to write a book that combines a detailed academic study of state terrorism with first hand testimonies of the horrors of the `70s. It's an admirable appraisal of a complex period of history and, for those with a detailed knowledge of the period, her investigation into the inevitability of `El Proceso' will, I am sure, be enlightening. However, as someone coming to the subject for the first time I found the academic text too dry and the personal testimonies ultimately unsatisfactory. I wanted more of them.

Marchak comes from the class rooms of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at the University of British Coloumbia. Not surprisingly, then, a large percentage of the book reads like a scholarly dissertation. There is a clinical objectivity in the way she sets out her argument, which takes the reader from the roots of terror to the bureaucratic management of El Proceso. However, while her academic studies provide the context, it is the often heart rendering testimonies from those who lived through the terror that make this book come alive. Sadly there are too few of them.

Marchak defines `El Proceso' as "a process by which a military force constantly increased its power over the society by redefining ideological sins". Robert Cox, former editor-in-chief of the Buenos Aires Herald, described it in an editorial at the time as "a mindless Frankenstein's monster gone beserk". It is the latter's plain speaking that I prefer.

Being an academic I feel that Marchak is hamstrung by her desire to categorise movements and events in terms of -isms and-ists. She endeavours to define what the testimonies clearly show was an incredibly complex period of fear, denial and half-baked ideologies. She admits herself that the military's lack of any clear definition of the term `terrorist' was one of the main reasons that so many people were disappeared, that fear was so widespread. The testimonies support this. Stories of people disappeared simply because they were obstacles to personal ambition, or because they had something worth stealing, illustrate that this is a period to which you cannot apply the broad brush of generalisation. Of course terms such as Marxist and neoliberal were bandied around at the time but one feels these served only to paper over the cracks of a deeply divided society. I don't think the author uses them any better.

But what `God's Assassins' has done is to whet my appetite for more. Marchak raises several interesting questions - was Firmenich a double agent? And she makes some very poignant points - "the military was a creation of the society on which it preyed". I only wish that she had explored these further and illustrated them better with more eye-witness accounts.

I enjoyed this book. I did. It was a very quick read. Schaper is at her best when she's discussing her 'plotting' in winter for the next season's garden and the women of the Amherst Garden Club. The most successful essays were centered around her personal experiences with both homes and with planting.

That said, some of the theoretical examinations seemed a bit surface. I could have definitely done without the gypsy nonsense, for starers. If you really want to actually think about CSAs and garden markets, you'd get more out of Michael Pollan. His wonderfully rich analysis of Polyface Farm in Omnivore's Dilemna or his discussion of apple varietals in Botany of Desire, for instance. I had trouble understanding the relevance of the title to the contents of this book. I understand the author sees herself as an activist, but it barely shines in her words. Only the most abstract meanings and applications of activism are touched on.

Schaper is a fan of the Slow Food movement and defends it as a more than idealism. I'd tend to agree, but it seems much more realized in it's orginal Italian incarnation. The New York chapter looks like it has wonderful events but they are not cheap. It strikes me as fairly rarified...It's the good life for people with the luxury to focus on it. Upper middle class white people should tone down the pretense of being populists. While Schaper calls herself middle class, she's moved back to Manhattan in the last few years and has a backyard. Do that math. Not so struggling.

I had a problem with the essay on Gleaning. Schaper has no problem discussing Sackville-West, but it's insulting to your audience to assume that wouldn't have seen a french film that this essay is so clearly 'borrowed' from. Rearranging someone else's ideas might work in freshman lit in collge but she really should have referenced Agnes Varda. Gleaning should not extend to other people's ideas and work.

Read Michael Pollan and rent 'The Gleaners and I' by Agnes Varda from Netflix if you're at all interested in these topics.

During the negotiations which preceded the peaceful transition to majority rule in South Africa, the ANC leadership were continuously reminded that their struggle had not achieved victory, merely a place at the negotiating table, and therefore they needed to make compromises rather than speeches. The person doing this was Joe Slovo, the only white member of the ANC ruling counsel. As I read this book 800 page book about the Northern Ireland peace process, I felt they need a Joe Slovo or two.
The book centres around David Trimble, the leader of the largest Unionist party, who took great risks in reaching the compromise which became the Good Friday Agreement. He was constantly buffeted by his own community who felt he was being duped by Sinn Fein and bullied or flattered by the UK and Irish governments. His ability to (marginally) survive his parties chaotic decision making process was Houdini-like. This book seems to indicate, however, that the parties to the agreement rarely negotiated face-to-face, rather they stated positions to the governments, who try to broker and barter the deals - actually it has been a sequence of deals. The sheer physical and mental exhaustion of the process is very well conveyed. Whether your view is that Sinn Fein were duplicitous about decommissioning until it was too late to save the agreement or that the Unionists could never really stomach sharing power, it is clear that this process was allowed to continue on the glimmer of hope and beyond the point of any consistency or even logic. Sinn Fein do not emerge well from this account, The SDLP are completely ignored, the DUP are seen as partisan, hypocritical schemers, but perhaps the worst venom is directed at Tony Blair who is seen as claiming consistency and yet facilitates backsliding by Sinn Fein whenever he encounters it. This at a time when he was consciously joining George Bush's coalition of the willing against Terrorism.
I believe Godson's scepticism about Trimble's negotiations and his hostility to the process and players takes up too much of the book. I agree with his analysis of the defects of the prisoner releases, the Patton commission and of the Executive Council, however he sees no real distinction between the Irish Government, the SDLP and Sinn Fein. He cannot see any reason for the Irish hostility to the suspension of the Assembly and ultimately he sees both governments cringing and compromising lest there be a return to violence. He is no more forgiving about Trimble - he disparages his negotiating tactics as ineffective and/or overblown, he says that his lack of personal warmth verges on `political autism' and then claims that his lack of need for human interaction is what allowed him to survive as leader of a divided party for so long!
I started to wonder why Trimble allowed this author such access, when it was plain his views were so critical. I came to the conclusion that there was sometime quite amateurish about the Trimble approach - he is unafraid to be shown `warts and all', sure that he will be vindicated by History. While this may be commendable, I don't think it is effective leadership, you need to make your case consistently and authoritatively, you need to surround yourself with a strong team of committed operators - criticism will come in spades, without having to seek it out. Trimbles approach to party organisation and to influencing/propaganda were haphazard and ineffective, and I think this was to the detriment of his own cause and people.
I found Goodson's 800 pages very tough going. His style is journalistic and it is quite effective at reflecting contemporary moods. There are lapses, as you might expect in so long a work- eg. Brian Keenan, is mentioned first on p 601 without any reference to who he is; the participants who are known to be gay (Peter Mandelson and Stephen King) are both described as being `flamboyant'; eventually anyone who agrees with Trimble becomes called a `Trimbelista'. However I do think its length and seriousness did justice to the subject, but its point of view is sceptical/hostile (`Trimblecontra'?) and a better analysis would probably be obtained from Dr. Paul Bew ( a `Timbelista).
I believe History will judge Trimble kindly, I believe that any Unionist leader who negotiated a change of this magnitude risked the wrath of his followers ( his predecessor, James Molyneaux , risked no negotiations and achieved nothing); I believe he made the case for `defanging' Sinn Fein and was the only person in the process who could make them decommission - which they did grudgingly and too late to save the Good Friday agreement. He showed that Unionists are capable to contemplating the grand compromise and taking the painful steps this necessitates.

This book has wonderful ideas, but is written so poorly that it takes forever to read. It is plagued with redundant academic jargon, and ridiculous sentence structures. Hopefully the publisher (or author) will correct this in a future edition.

I'd been looking forward to reading Opel's book for some time. Having finally gotten around to it, I am both pleased and displeased with the text.

Pleased, because Opel has done extensive analysis over a variety of texts (the microradio listserv, FCC policy, legislation, press) on the LPFM debate. In this regard, his book is a significant contribution to our understanding of LPFM's genesis and initial development.

Displeased, because the book exhibits a subpar writing style, rife with spelling and grammatical errors throughout, including names of key figures. Perhaps a small point, but one that is frustratingly distracting from the text.

In short - good research, good information, sloppy line editing.

Not the book I had hoped it woud be. Though I do not have my copy infront of me from what I can remember I wasn't too impressed. After delving a little deeper into the book it became clear that I wasn't going to find what I was looking for (clear examples of what Boal does) in my research. This seemed to be one of those books where someone wanted to be published so they "edited" a bunch of articles written by others so everybody gets a book under their belt and everyone wine. Not so fast future book buyer. You don't win. Stick to the books pened by Boal himself. He is actually a wonderfull author, very clear, and you will probibly find answers to all your questions. Start with Boal first. This isn't a bad book! This is just not a great place to start if you are just discovering Boal.

In the mid-1990s, former Mayor Guiliani forced adult stores to leave communities and "cleaned up" Times Square in favor of the Disney Corporation. This anthology is based upon writings from a conference on the matter. The authors ask many questions. How does/did public sex shape the gay community? How does the attack against public sex hurt AIDS education? How are prostitutes affected by the Times Square "clean up"? Why are radical queers uniting with anti-gay conservatives to close bathhouses? How is the public/private divide collapsing as gay rights becomes old news?

This book showed academics working as sex radicals and sex radicals working as academics. Gay studies undergraduates are going to be surprised at how risque and sex-positive their stodgy professors can be. Readers of all educational backgrounds will be shocked when they see what sexual act is portrayed on the cover of this basically non-pornographic text.

This book had authors diverse in their gender, sexual orientation, and HIV status. This will give readers of all sexualities a glimpse at how members of the gay community can conflict with each other. For instance, the venom at which these contributors condemn Signorile and Rotello has not been seen since the constructionists' attack against the late historian Boswell. Still, as complex as this book was, it may be an example of too many cooks spoiling the soup. Further, this book is VERY New York-centered and many readers from other localities may not be able to relate.

Let me leave with two examples of problems in this book. Kendall Thomas interviews a black gay man and black lesbian who started radical sex establishments in the City. He introduces his first question with reference to the 1980s Bowers decision and Pat Califia as if these clubowners were as erudite as himself. Later, Munoz jumps from Adorno to Warhol to tearoom art to the psychology of HIV-negative gay men all within 15 pages. I think these two academics are two of the most awesome writers out there and yet I found myself rolling my eyes during both discussions.

This book is unique, yet it gets repetitive after a while. It is quite challenging, yet I still ask myself, "What were all these contributors thinking?!"

I am glad I got the chance to read this book, but some of the balls being juggled here were dropped.

The text by Ryan is superbly researched and delves in-depth into an often overlooked personality of the IRA in the post-Tan War era. An student of Irish history and the Republican plight will enjoy it; however, it is a slow read with many details that are occasionally arbitrary. If you need a research text, this is your book- if you are looking for a fast-paced battle diary look to Guerilla Days in Ireland by Commandant Tom Barry.

The subject of this book - ways that communities are developing their own democratic spaces - is an important one that I am particularly interested in, as a political activist. I have to say that I was a bit disappointed by the lack of breadth in the different communities covered. I was expecting a survey of experiments in democracy around the world. What Wainwright presented was an example from Argentina, an altogether too brief reference to Brazil, and then several examples from the UK.

She teaches in the UK, so the focus is not surprising. But that focus was off-putting to someone (like me) not terribly familiar with the structure of local government in the UK. She explained the specifics of the Argentinian political fora well enough, but I think that she presumed to be writing for a British audience.

If you must read everything on this subject (creating more direct democracy in your own community) or you are a community activist in the UK, I think that this book is worthwhile. Others in the rest of the world may not find enough in this book to engage and energize them.