Paul Dano

I of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at "side issues". And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what?