This week, we spoke to Dr. Melanie Thompson and the Emory Outbreak Response Team. Dr. Thompson emphasized the importance of ensuring that the community (aka the target recipients) were always included in the decision-making process. The Emory Outbreak Response Team also talked about the challenges in talking to people who did not necessarily agree with them about the vaccine, and how it was important to listen to them and work with them to find innovative ways to spread information.
Seeing the ways that the community can come together to solve AIDS or combat misinformation gives me hope. However, it also gives an insight into how the religious right have been able to effectively organize. If you have a large group of people that agree that congregate each week, it is easy to convert that into voting power if you promote the respective messages. It also helps a community elect a leader, because if you are a part of this community, you already have a set base that will vote for you.
However, this also makes me wonder how to engage those who do not usually involve themselves in activism. For example, in the Cambodian American community, we have the reputation of not voting or caring about politics. However, this is exactly the sentiment that leads to candidates that do not serve the Cambodian American community. Furthermore, high poverty rates, low levels of education, and the fact that most are refugees of a Genocide provide many accessibility issues if they want to become politically involved. While I believe that most Cambodian Americans can agree that certain issues are present, I wonder how that can be redirected to direct action.
On the other hand, I see a lot of movement on my corner of social media towards social justice, but Millennials and Gen-Z seem discouraged by the appearance of a lack of action. I wonder if this is because we are focusing on national issues and want big flashy actions, even though it’s difficult to get national issues to come to a consensus, and local issues are not receiving the same headlines unless it’s extremely controversial. If so, should individuals pay more attention to local politics? If not, how do Millennials and Gen-Z have to channel their support more effectively into legislation?
Hi Emie,
This was a great post! And, I’m glad you highlighted the importance that communities–specifically marginalized communities–should have in the decision making process. A big part of being in this discussion is by electing someone who will represent the interests of your community. At least from what I have seen in the Desi communities, a large part of getting people involved is by having conversations. I know many people that I know have voted simply because I struck up a conversation with them and directed them to sites where they can learn more information about elections/voting in general. Then, these individuals told others in their networks to go vote. A large part of our cultures are based in communalism, so if individuals see people they know voting, they will in turn engage in such actions.
Emie, great post. I think your question is an interesting one. If often political doctrine/dogma/ideas are often pushed in organized religious settings, what other settings could one engage with to help motivate folks to get involved politically. Where else do folks congregate? Grocery stores? Barber shops? Hair/nail salons? Restaurants? Bars? What about community centers? Would any of these work for the Cambodian American refugees you reference?