DEEP FRIED REVOLUTION

by Malik Isasis












Exotic southern food was spread out on the floor in bowls: deep fried catfish, flapjack cornbread, spicy black beans, rice, yams, fruit and collard greens. Six of us sat Indian-style around the food on the floor. My friends Lin and Amber decided that they wanted to get some of their closest friends together over some soul food and discuss, “What would it take to make a better world?”

The 8 questions that were posed to the group were:

1. What would it take to make a better world?
2. What is the role of the individual in a social movement?
3. Is social evolution, or revolution possible?
4. What would be the elements of such a movement?
5. What’s wrong with the current social political climate?
6. What would the structure and goals of a social (R)evolution look like?
7. What would the core values of such a movement be?
8. Where do we start?


There was one person amongst us who’d witnessed many of the great empowerment movements of the 60s and early 70s that included the Gay Rights Movement, Women’s Movement, Civil Rights Movement, and Vietnam Anti-War Movement. His observation was that the United States educational system not only churns out worker bees, but teaches complacency, and obedience and that if there were to be a revolution, the overthrow of a political system, there would have to be an evolution, of how we teach children, and how we teach.

Everyone had insightful things to say about some of the root causes of political and social decay, for instance, the youngest person at the meeting discussed the culture of consumption, which convinces people to buy things that they don’t need, therefore, keeping them in debt and staying in jobs they hate.

The most powerful argument discussed by all was the culture of individualism in America, which fragments family and communities. Rugged individualism, which is defined as a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence over community, was the American fallacy used in the expansion of the country. This mythos is still a very influential philosophy in American culture, just look as Bush's governance.

If everyone is an individual, it is easier to divide and conquer dissent among the people.

Pro-active rather than Reactive

I would like to hear from you about your ideas in response to the 8 questions. How do we create a more responsive, pro-active revolution, which addresses the political disparity between the people and the political machinery?

Please write and I’ll post your ideas and comments. If you have a very long critique, email them to me at malikisasis@yahoo.com. I hope to hear from you.

PIMP THIS |