Vibralocity is proud to announce that we are now a Certified LGBTBE® (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans Business Enterprise). Joshua, the owner of Vibralocity is a genderqueer and pansexual person who loves music and art. To become an official member of the National LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce is an honor and privilege. Our organization may now offer services as a diverse supplier, while standing in our truth as an LGBTQ-owned business! 

If you haven’t heard of NGLCC, check them out HERE. 

Here’s a brief description of the Chamber from their website: 

“The National LGBT Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), the business voice of the LGBTQ community, is the only national advocacy organization dedicated to expanding economic opportunities for the LGBTQ business community.”

Another piece of news is that Vibralocity also joined the Oregon LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, known as Oregon Pride in Business (ORPIB). Check them out HERE.

Here’s a brief description from their website:

“Oregon Pride in Business champions economic empowerment for LGBTQIA2S+ businesses and communities throughout Oregon and SW Washington.”

I’m not going to lie- I used to think that protests were an ineffective form of resistance. I’ve been to numerous protests since 2012 and the Occupy Movement. That’s when I started viewing myself as an activist. Each time I would attend a protest, though, I always came away from it feeling deflated- like we all had just spent so much energy to accomplish nothing. I’ve heard people call protests ‘grumpy parades’ and that’s often how I’ve felt. Even with pro-Palestine marches, I was feeling like no matter what we did, the bombs would continue to fall on innocent Palestinians. 

This sentiment changed for me recently. I attended an anti-deportation protest and I think for me it finally clicked (only took 13 years). Protests and marches don’t always have to have a goal or accomplishment attached. What I’ve realized is that protests are actually a form of collective grief being shared. The people who attend, while some may be there for performative purposes, mostly are there to be in solidarity or to speak truth to power and stand up against injustice. But that action of standing together for a common cause is one of the ways we as humans can build our collective power. That simple act can have tremendous results in the hearts and the minds of the people who attend. 

Does the government care when we protest? Not so much. Will the people in positions of authority automatically stop acting in alignment with military contractors, oil companies, and banks? Nope. But, that doesn’t matter, because we have taken collective action that builds our own movement and takes us one step closer to challenging those systems of oppression. 

Next I want to talk about boycotts. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, I’m sure by now you’ve heard of BDS (boycott, divest, and sanctions). This is a movement where the people withhold financial contributions to companies and institutions that are enacting or enabling genocide and oppression. This movement has been shown to be extremely powerful- and there is opportunity for it to gain more power. Weapons manufacturers have had plants vandalized, shipping companies have seen their ports blocked off, entire universities have divested from war-profiteering companies, and many organizations have lost all credibility in the marketplace for their contributions to colonization. Voting with our dollar works- it tells the people running these companies and institutions that we won’t be complicit in their crimes, and we will find alternatives for the things we need. 

Strikes are another form of resistance that are probably one of the scariest things we can do right now- so many people are living paycheck to paycheck, so to forgo any income is to ponder houselessness. However, strikes are incredibly effective, especially when there are clear demands and enough people participate. While individual organizations experiencing strikes can absolutely be disruptive- imagine if millions of people across the country went on strike. That’s what many of us are trying to accomplish. If you want to sign up to support this movement, visit this site: https://generalstrikeus.com. I hope you’ll join us!

Finally, I wanted to discuss mutual aid. Mutual aid is something we are going to need moving forward, especially as the U.S. administration tanks the economy and tries to steal all our money (student loan garnishments), and especially if we are all planning on going on strike. Mutual aid is a practice that helps people with more than they need distribute goods and resources to people who are in need of basic essentials. As things become tighter and more of us are faced with bills we can’t pay, mutual aid will become increasingly important. Please be open to this form of resistance, as it has already helped so many (and you may need it someday soon, too). 

That’s all I have for this post. Short and sweet. I just wanted to explore the forms of resistance that are available to us, the people. Let’s remember these for the times ahead. They will serve us well. 

Many people have heard the phrase ‘all art is political.’ For a long time, I used to resonate with this statement, and was even going to make that the title of this blog post. However, after reading multiple perspectives online about this topic, I have decided to dig a little deeper and ask the question- when does art become political? 

When examining art, there are three main spectrums that we can use as a lens: the purpose of the art, the intended audience of the art, and the creator of the art. With regard to purpose, I like to view the spectrum on one end as the creation of art for use in corporate advertising and branding, and the other end being mold-breaking avant garde works that innovate and expand the mind. In between these two poles, you have art created for myriad purposes- for enjoyment, to provoke thought, to evoke emotion, or some combination of these. With regard to audience, the poles of the spectrum are usually- mainstream consumption on one end and ‘the underground’ aka counterculture movement on the other end. In between those poles, we find casual consumers of art, connoisseurs of art, critics of art, and more. With regard to the creator, the poles of the spectrum are often- the casual practitioner of art who creates at home in solitude on one end, and the globally recognized and celebrated artist who sells out giant stadiums on their multi-billion dollar tours on the other end. In between we have every conceivable level of artist imaginable. 

I introduce these spectrums because I think they are useful when asking the question- when does art become political? For example, would you say that someone painting at home for their own personal enjoyment is political? I think most people would say no. On the other hand, when you listen to Rage Against the Machine’s ‘Killing in the Name Of’- you very quickly realize that the entire song (and frankly, the entire music project) is making an overt political statement. 

So, what is the deciding factor? Is art only political when it is intended to be? Toni Morrison doesn’t seem to think so, as evidenced by her now famous quote- ‘all good art is political.’ I think maybe we can break this down further, to get closer to our answer. To me, it seems that when someone makes art and they have a large following (say, in the thousands), that they are essentially making a statement with their art, whether they intend it or not. What may be a better way to frame this is- art is political when it is intended to be; an artist is political whenever they have influence. 

A good example of this is Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift has millions of fans across the globe. Listening to most of Taylor Swift’s music does not (in my opinion) invoke feelings of revolution or locking kids in cages. She mostly sings about falling in love or having a broken heart from what I’ve heard. However, just last year Taylor Swift encouraged her fanbase to register to vote and she got 35,000 people to register within days- that encouragement is clearly a political act. While Taylor Swift did state that she supported the Democratic candidate who was running, she also encouraged folks to use their own voice in the democratic process. 

Even artists who don’t encourage fans to vote or revolt or break things are making a political statement, though, because when one doesn’t use influence to oppose the status quo, they are essentially condoning it. I know a lot of people reading this will disagree with this statement, so let’s unpack it. What is the status quo? The status quo is the existing state of things. Even in the definition I provided, it states ‘if you are rich and admired, then you’re probably not interested in disrupting the status quo.’ The status quo in the United States, for instance, is that corporations are people, billionaires don’t have to pay taxes, and women don’t have bodily autonomy. All of these statements seem bizarre and counter-intuitive if taken out of context. The corporate and state propaganda machines have convinced the majority of the population that this existing state is not only OK (normalization), but it is preferred. So, when an artist says nothing about the status quo, what they are saying is ‘this is all fine by me.’ 

I know that last sentence will ruffle some feathers too, so again, let’s unpack. When talking about the status quo, it is also important to consider privilege. The result of having privilege is that a person is able to remain unaffected by a particular issue, law, rule, or limitation. When people are unaware of their privilege or they choose to ignore it, they are quite often apolitical, or simply vote in alignment with the status quo. These are people who make statements like’ keep politics out of art’ or ‘stick to the music.’ 

Making statements like this implies that the audience should dictate what the artist creates and how they use their influence- which implies that the artist is somehow employed or contracted by the person making the statement, which is usually not the case. When an artist is hired or commissioned to make a piece, then the person or company hiring them usually does have a say (though not always). Again we come back to the idea that the intended audience of a piece of art can determine whether it is political or not. This also makes me think of the quote ‘Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable’ by Cesar A. Cruz. This presents the notion that disrupting the status quo (the comfortable) is an important facet of art. 

I usually stay away from trying to define what art is and isn’t. To me, the way food is cooked can be considered an art just as much as the way someone dresses or dances or sings or paints. I don’t find it useful to try and define art, because almost anything can be done artistically or creatively. This means that the purpose of the art becomes paramount- if the purpose is to entertain or to sell something, then maybe it is less political. If the purpose is to bring people together or to change the way people view something, then it is probably more political. 

Considering this, I am reminded of the origins of dance music culture. While at the moment EDM is considered mainstream, it was not always this way. Electronic dance music got its start as a counterculture movement- it was a place for the outcasts of society (queer, trans, people of color, drag queens, sex workers, and poor people) to gather and feel safe and be authentic. These roots of dance music culture often get forgotten or completely overlooked by people who are new to the scene. Some of these people even get mad at artists who use their platform to inspire social change or who speak out against oppressive governments and policies. 

No matter the environment one is creating or experiencing art in, that act of creating or experiencing art could be considered political. This comes back to privilege. Often in our society  and across the world, people are prohibited from having art as part of their lives. This could be due to factors related to poverty, an oppressive government, incarceration, or even abuse. So, when we are able to create or experience art, we are allowed to do so because of our privilege to not be limited by the factors I just mentioned. Again, when we remain unaware of our privilege or we ignore it, then we are actually complicit in the oppressive forces that limit others from having that same privilege. In being complicit, we are making the political statement that we are fine with the status quo and don’t feel compelled to oppose or disrupt it. 

This brings me back to the original question- when does art become political? I think that the answer isn’t something that is cut and dry. Rather, it requires examining the context of the art- why was this art created, who is the art meant for, and who created it? The answers to these questions will reveal the political nature of the art, and may tell you something about the art that you enjoy. 

Whether or not you consider yourself to be a political person, I assure you- politics have an influence on your life. The outcomes of elections and the policies of our elected officials will determine how we are able to interact with our world and to meet our most basic needs. So the next time you are creating or experiencing art, I encourage you to consider- Why was this art created? Who is the art meant for? Who created it? Maybe thinking about those questions will help you see the connection between art and politics. 

I have something to say that I hope no one takes out of context. First- I should state that I am anti-capitalist, anti-billionaire, anti-fascist, and anti-racist. I do my best to practice these ideals in my everyday life, although I know I am not perfect. I am sure that I have internalized racism and white supremacy because of the society I was raised in. Although I do have those biases, I believe that I have done some of the work needed to overcome that upbringing- but I acknowledge that I still have much work to do.

All that being said, I want to talk about people like Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerburg. These privileged, mediocre white dudes are running everything in this country because of their status, wealth, and influence. It’s easy to hate them. It’s easy to look down on them and blame them for all our problems. I don’t disagree with this viewpoint. However… Recently I have begun to feel what I can only describe as empathy for them. NOT pity, not sympathy, but empathy… meaning, I have begun to maybe understand what it could be like to walk in their shoes. 

You see, most white colonizers are completely detached from their ancestral roots. They identify only with whiteness and being a capitalist. Those tenants make up their ‘culture’ if you want to call it that. That’s why they’re afraid of immigrants. That’s why they’re afraid of socialism. These ideas challenge the identity and culture of the white colonizer– so they must be destroyed. When we look deeper, we can also see that white colonizers are often deeply insecure- about their talents, intelligence, and appearance. So, when they are faced with people from other cultures or ethnicities that are more talented, more intelligent, or more attractive- they become defensive. Again- their identity is challenged and so they must destroy the threat. 

I hope whoever is reading this realizes that having empathy for someone does not mean that I agree with their choices nor celebrate the impact they have. I do not look up to billionaires. I do not think these people are good leaders or smart decision makers, or good people in general. I think these people are very flawed and very scared of losing their way of life. Because if they lose their status and their wealth, they will have to face this challenging world with the rest of us, and they won’t have any more special protections or privileges to hide behind. 

I think we can go deeper here and look at the people who idolize billionaires and idolize people like Trump. Many (not all) of the followers of these folks are also white. They have also benefited from the system being rigged in their favor (whether they realize it or not). So, they have become agents and protectors of the system in order to protect their own identity. That’s why it’s so hard to have critical discussions with people who believe in whiteness and capitalism, because their brains won’t allow them to consider any alternative system, where they are not the dominant culture. 

We call that cognitive bias. People who have their worldview challenged but lack the critical thinking skills to look beyond their own biases and privilege and instead hide behind the challenges that they have faced in their life. While those challenges are valid, they often become distractions from the systemic issues that caused those challenges in the first place. Granted, a big part of the problem is that all of our mainstream media, corporate messaging, and political campaigning is designed to reinforce that cognitive bias- making people divided along political and social lines, rather than realizing that the system was designed to consolidate wealth into the hands of a few. 

What’s the point of saying all this? I guess what I’m getting at is that America is a culture of whiteness. White people represent the dominant culture right now, and they are very afraid of losing that dominance. They are afraid because of the propaganda that they consume (and believe), and they are afraid because they are insecure. Most white people in power (or who feel that they have power over others) probably realize that they didn’t earn that power. They were given that power because of their whiteness. Because it was given and not earned, it can be taken away just as easily. This is quite the opposite of what our white politicians claim they want, which is a ‘meritocracy.’ 

So, what can we do about it? I think it starts with bringing awareness to it. Yelling at white people that they are privileged and they didn’t earn their power and that their suffering isn’t as bad as people of other races will… not solve the problem. It might feel good for a while, but all that will accomplish is further entrenching those people into their short-sighted viewpoints. Instead, what I will be doing is exploring this feeling of empathy that I’m having. I don’t want to feel sorry for these people, but I do want to understand them. Because if I can understand them, then I can perhaps begin to see what it would take for them to change their minds. And we truly need some of them to change their mind, because if they don’t this isn’t going to end well. 

Things are escalating. People are becoming more desperate, more violent, and more radical. If we don’t take the time to try to understand our perceived enemies, then we will destroy each other, and that will be the story of this country and probably of this global human society. I don’t want to be extremist, but this is one possible outcome that I think we all need to face. What I would ask (and will be reminding myself of) is to remember that empathy is not devoid of accountability. When people are hurting others (especially those who are weaker or less fortunate), we need to call that out. We need to intervene and stop that from happening, if that’s within our power. 

When the dominant culture practices intolerance, it is time to stand up to that culture and demand change. At the same time, we have to remember that the people we are fighting against are still human. They have the same needs that we do, and generally they have the same desires- freedom, happiness, connection, community, and pleasure. The forms these desires take, and the way people are willing to pursue those desires is often where we find conflict. I’m not claiming to be anyone’s moral authority, but to me, it does seem clear that if your pursuit of desire means that someone else needs to be more impoverished or exploited than you are- then your views are flawed. 

What we need is global collectivism– we need people to care about the whole of humanity and not just their own culture, religion, or country. We especially need that from white people, because whiteness is tearing this country apart and it has to stop. I hope that we find a way to get through this and for white people to see that there is value in having immigrants in this country. I hope that white people see that capitalism is not the only effective method of commerce. We will see what happens.