Inscriptions Volume 7 | Return to
Coalition Building Among People of Color
A discussion with
Angela Y. Davis and Elizabeth Martínez
Angela Y. Davis and Elizabeth "Betita" Martínez are authors and longtime activists
in struggles for social justice. Ms. Davis is currently Professor of History of
Consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and working on alternatives to
prison for women. Ms. Martínez writes on Latino issues and works with the
Women of Color Resource Center in Berkeley, as well as with youth groups. On May 12,
1993, Ms. Davis and Ms. Martínez spoke at the University of California, San
Diego on "Building Coalitions of People of Color." They discussed this topic and related
issues with students, staff, and community members. What follows are edited comments
from the transcripts of that presentation. The questions posed are from audience members
present at the forum.
How can different people of color come together to build a coalition
when their communities have different needs?
MARTÍNEZ: First of all, we have to reject any hierarchy of needs of different
communities. The whole idea of making a hierarchy of demands is sure death from the
beginning. I don't mean that some communities or some groups on a campus or in any
other community will not want to emphasize certain needs. That's inevitable and there's
nothing wrong with it. But we cannot be trapped in arguing about "My need is greater than
yours," or "A women's center is more important than a Latino cultural center," or
whatever. We have to fight together because there is a common enemy. Especially if you
are up against an administration being divisive, I think everybody has to come together and
form an alliance or a set of goals together.
There are various forms of working together. A coalition is one, a network is another, an
alliance is yet another. And they are not the same; some of them are short-term, and some
are long-term. A network is not the same as a coalition. A network is a more permanent,
ongoing thing. I think you have to look at what the demands are, and ask: What kind of
coming together do we need to win these demands? And if you know the administration
will pick your groups off one by one, then the largest umbrella you can possibly get is
probably the best one. Some of the answers to your question are tactical and depend upon
the circumstances. But the general idea is no competition of hierarchies should prevail. No
DAVIS: As Betita has pointed out, we need to be more flexible in our thinking about
various ways of working together across differences. Some formations may be more
permanent and some may be short-term. However, we often assume that the disbanding of a
coalition or alliance marks a moment of failure, which we would rather forget. As a
consequence, we often fail to incorporate a sense of the accomplishments, as well as of the
weaknesses, of that formation into our collective and organizational memories. Without this
memory, we are often condemned to start from scratch each time we set out to build new
This is not the first period during which we have confronted the difficult problem of using
difference as a way of bringing people together, rather than as incontrovertible evidence of
separation. There are more options than sameness, opposition, or hierarchical relations.
One of the basic challenges confronting women of color today, as Audre Lorde has pointed
out, is to think about and act upon notions of equality across difference. There are so many
ways in which we can conceptualize coalitions, alliances, and networks that we would be
doing ourselves a disservice to argue that there is only one way to construct relations across
racial and ethnic boundaries. We cannot assume that if it does not unfold in one particular
way, then it is not an authentic coalition.
There do seem to be a lot of problems with that idea of coming together
across differences. For example, some people want to spend more time just
on African American issues, which might not be the priority of a
DAVIS: Some people may want to do work specifically around African American issues.
But this approach does not have to exclude working across and beyond racial boundaries
as, for example, the National Black Women's Health Project focuses on Black women's
health issues and, at the same time, is involved in the Women of Color Coalition for
Reproductive Rights. At the same time, this idea of "spending more time with one's own
group" needs to be interrogated. How would you define "one's own group"? For African
Americans, would that include every person who meets the requirements of physical
appearance or every person who identifies as African American, regardless of their
phenotype? Would it include Republican African Americans who are opposed to affirmative
I think we need to be more reflective, more critical and more explicit about our concepts of
community. There is often as much heterogeneity within a Black community, or more
heterogeneity, than in cross-racial communities. An African American woman might find it
much easier to work together with a Chicana than with another Black woman, whose
politics of race, class, gender and sexuality would place her in an entirely different
community. What is problematic is the degree to which nationalism has become a paradigm
for our community-building processes. We need to move away from such arguments as
"Well, she's not really Black." "She comes from such-and-such a place." "Her hair is..."
"She doesn't listen to 'our' music," and so forth. What counts as Black is not so important
as our political coalition building commitment to engage in anti-racist, anti-sexist, and
MARTÍNEZ: There is also a tendency to say "That's a Latino issue," or "That's an
African American issue," or whatever, and to see those issues as separate. Or there are
people concerned with gender issues, people concerned with gay and lesbian rights,
X-Y-Z. As if those matters are all separate, as if there's no connection. Cornel West, the
African American philosopher and writer, spoke recently in San Francisco talking about the
importance of linkages. For example, he said gay and lesbian rights are an issue in the
African American community. They aren't separate, outside of the community. Just
because the issue is not welfare, or racism, or gangs, that doesn't mean it's not a Black
community issue. I think that's a very useful and important way to look at things. I know a
lot of Latinos wouldn't agree that gay and lesbian rights are a Latino issue. But we need to
work for this understanding and make it clear that the issue is not a problem for a bunch of
people outside the Latino community who happen to be gay or lesbian. It's inside our
community. Taking that kind of position is the only way that in fact makes sense.
Did you ever have any tensions with other people who ask, "Well, are
you a person of color first and a woman next? Or are you with women's
issues first and people of color come second to that?" Did you have any
trouble saying, "Well, I'm a person of color and a woman at the same
DAVIS: Last fall at UC Santa Cruz, we established a Women of Color Research Cluster
within which faculty, graduate students and staff discuss their individual work, engage in
collaborative projects, sponsor talks by women of color scholars and activists. We are
presently working on a journal, edited by María Ochoa and Teresia Teaiwa.
Another member of the cluster, Margaret Daniel, organizes an annual Women of Color
Film and Video Festival on campus.
The term "women of color" is often used in a nominalistic way, without substantive
meaning. However, within this research cluster women of color can really wrestle with the
hard questions about working together, building collaborative forms, exploring cross-racial
cultural/ethnic relations among women, whether they be conflictual and antagonistic or
collaborative and coalitional. As Chela Sandoval has argued, this is an era during which
"women of color" are being constructed as a new social/political subject.
In thinking about women of color as a political subject, it may be helpful for those of us
who are African American to recall that the "Black" subject is a subject that was historically
created. I grew up thinking of myself as a "Negro," largely unable to articulate the extent to
which social inferiority was constructed as an essential dimension of the "Negro." It is
important to recognize the various forms of agency with which identities can be and are
constructed, in order not to get stuck in them, in order not to assume that racialized
identifies have always been there. A "Black" subject was created. We can also create a
"women of color" subject. That is what much of this forum is about: How can we construct
political projects that rethink identities in dynamic ways and lead to transformative
strategies and radical social change?
MARTÍNEZ: There is a tremendous tendency in this culture to establish rigid
categories, and not to have any kind of a dialectical understanding of the society or its
forces; this tendency makes us incapable of seeing that something both is and isn't at the
same time. There's pressure to say you're a woman or you're a person of color. It's dead-
end discussion, and one to be resisted. There's no way to separate what you experience as
a person in the Raza community from being a woman. You might concentrate on certain
issues and give them more attention than others at a given moment. But separation as
self-definition? No. Don't box me in.
Do you think it's necessary to have ideological unity to build a
coalition? And if we do not use ideology as a basis to build coalitions,
what's the basis that we use?
DAVIS: First of all, people who subscribe to similar ideologies can and do come together.
Historically, the particular formations within which they work have been called political
parties. Until a few years ago, I was a member of the Communist Party, for example.
However, ideological affinity is not essential to coalition work, and that is what we
presently are concerned with. For twenty years I was co-chairperson of the National
Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression (I am presently chair emeritus). Our work
initially was framed by a project to free political prisoners. This work raises questions.
How do you develop campaigns to free political prisoners? Does one have to identify, for
example, with the philosophical nationalism of a Black nationalist political prisoner in order
to join the effort to free her? Or can one articulate a position of opposition to political
repression, while disagreeing with the prisoner's particular politics?
Take the movement that developed around my case. My communist politics did not deter
the vast numbers of people, and the over 250 separate committees, in this country and
abroad, many of whom may have absolutely disagreed with my politics, from becoming
active in the "Free Angela Davis Campaign." There are many ways of configuring
networks, alliances and coalitions, departing from people's commitment to social change.
Again, I want to emphasize the importance of historical memory in our contemporary
efforts to work together across differences. I raise the importance of historical memory not
for the purpose of presenting immutable paradigms for coalition-building, but rather in
order to understand historical trajectories and precisely to move beyond older conceptions
of cross-racial organizing.
It would seem to me that once you establish the issue that a group or a
coalition is going to work on that would be the ideology. Maybe I'm
confusing "issue" and "ideology," and if I am, what's the distinction
between the two?
MARTÍNEZ: One handy distinction is to think of coalitions being built around
issues, and ideology being a worldview. An ideology is a set of ideas that explains what
makes society tick and what its values are. You don't have to agree on that with other
people in order to fight for health care, housing, affirmative action, or whatever. You do
have to agree with somebody's ideology, I think, if you're going to join certain kinds of
organizations that demand ideological unity, from the Boy Scouts to the Communist Party.
But coalitions, networks, and alliances should never make the mistake of demanding
ideological unity. They can expect unity around an issue.
DAVIS: Let me offer a rather simple example. Suppose I am a revolutionary who
announces the ultimate intention of overturning the system of capitalism. I am therefore
interested in establishing a socialized health care system. It would be absurd to argue,
although during the course of my career as an activist I have heard this many times, that
first we have to overthrow the government, then we can consider reconfiguring the health
care system. Consequently, I pursue a political relationship with women who are good
church organizers, who might be utterly unwilling to talk about revolutionary change. We
can decide to put forth ideas about health care that are much stronger than Clinton's, and
decide about principles around which we will organize a mass campaign. At the same time,
we may be very different ideologically.
We often expect individuals to be theoretically informed activists from the outset, in
possession of a full-blown political consciousness, as well as having the capacity to
organize for social change. As a matter of fact, most people get involved as a result of
being hailed by a visible political movement. Drawing from my own personal history, I felt
summoned by the students' entrance into the Civil Rights Movement. Although I felt that I
was missing out on a powerful movement, because I had left the South and was in high
school in New York at the time, I discovered a way to feel connected with Civil Rights
At age fifteen, I participated in a youth project of picketing the Woolworth's near the 42nd
Street library every Saturday morning. I was therefore also summoned by those who
organized this particular way of expressing solidarity with the Southern movement. If there
had been no movements to hail me, I have no idea what I would have done or would be
doing today. If you are one of those organizers capable of pioneering initiatives, and we
need such organizers in women of color movements today, and you want to activate youth,
make sure you combine the political content with forms and styles of presentation that can
dramatically hail young women and men.
How can the successful coalition of gay and lesbian communities be
extended to a broader coalition of the entire human race, where all of us
can be included in one broad coalition, fighting for the day when none of
us will be recognized as African American, or as an Anglo American, or as
a Spanish American, but as a human being, and as one race, one person,
DAVIS. Your moves are a little too fast for me. I am not sure that I would want to end up
at a place where everybody is the same. I do not take a common future to mean a
homogeneous future. While I absolutely agree with the importance you place on
challenging compulsory heterosexuality, homophobia, hate crimes against lesbians, gay
men and bisexuals, I don't know whether we can assume that multiracial coalitions have
already been successfully constructed within gay communities. Racism is still a factor both
within the gay movement and in the way the gay movement is publicly perceived. The
ideological question of gay and white is still very much a problem. This is not, however, to
underestimate the significant anti-racist work in predominantly white gay circles, nor is it to
ignore the important work on multiple fronts by gay women and men of color.
In building alliances and coalitions, we have to consider carefully how to articulate issues
so as to encourage racial boundary crossing. I personally am concerned about the way this
question of lifting the ban on gays and lesbians in the military seemingly has moved to the
top of the political agenda in a relatively uncomplicated articulation. Homophobia in the
military should be opposed, unquestionably. The ban should be lifted. But to base this
demand on formalistic arguments equating the soldierly abilities of gays and lesbians with
those of straight people is extremely problematic.
In this context, the question would be: How is it possible to vigorously oppose the ban on
gays and lesbians in the military and at the same time to principally oppose the military?
This is especially important within the context of coalitions involving African Americans
since for young Black men, the military, with its authoritarian structure and imperialistic
projects, has become one of the only escape routes from joblessness, drugs, and prison. In
the course of organizing against homophobia in the military, it should also be possible to
raise demands for jobs, education, etc.
MARTÍNEZ: The question asked just now also concerns the idea of seeing all
human beings in one broad coalition. People ask. "Why can't we all see each other as
human beings? Why do we have to emphasize these differences?" or "Why do we need
feminism? Why can't we just have humanism? Doesn't talking about racism and the
different races just perpetuate the problem?" This negates the structures of power that
determine human relationships in this society in a way that is deadening for a great number
of people, mostly, but by no means only people of color. You can't just say "Let's all get
along" until we get rid of those structures.
(Please comment on the fact that UC Berkeley is planning to cut first
year Spanish, and that move may have a domino effect (for Spanish
programs on other UC campuses).
MARTÍNEZ: I think students should be mobilizing against this move; students who
both speak Spanish and those who really should learn to speak Spanish.
DAVIS: Perhaps we might develop a campaign to expand the general education
requirements so that some knowledge of Spanish would be required of every student
attending any campus of the UC system. As we approach the millennium, we need to
demystify the notion that this country is monolingual.
MARTÍNEZ: We're also probably going to have to think in terms of languages
other than Spanish as the second language in a number of communities, according to the
population there. This is something we really need to be working on.
Angela Davis, I'd like to know your definition of a
DAVIS: I don't think I would propose a single definition of the term "feminist." It is one of
those categories/commitments that can have a range of definitions and I don't think that it is
helpful to insist on prescriptions for feminism. But I do think we can agree that feminism in
its many versions acknowledges the social impact of gender and involves opposition to
misogyny. In my opinion, the most effective versions of feminism acknowledge the
various ways gender, class, race and sexual orientation inform each other.
Some women, especially women of color, see feminism as anchored to a particular
historical experience of white middle-class women and they consequently are reluctant to
use "feminist" as a self-referential term. Among these women, some have opted, along
with Alice Walker, to call themselves "womanists." That's fine. This does not mean they
are unwilling to work with "feminists." Coalitional efforts among women of color should
not require the self-reference of womanism anymore than they should require the
self-reference of feminism. And it should not be a question of who is "more feminist"
because of sexual orientation, location in the academy or the factory, and so forth. We
should seek a point of junction constructed by the political projects we choose to embrace.
Even though feminism may mean different things for different women (and men), this
should not prevent us from creating movements that will put us in motion together, across
all our various differences.
Personally, it was only after many years of political involvement that I decided to embrace
the term feminism. I now feel very comfortable calling myself a feminist. But the way I am
a feminist tomorrow may be different from the way I am a feminist today. My own
conception of myself as a feminist constantly evolves as I learn more about the issues that
women's movements need to address. It is more productive, I think, not to adhere to rigid
categories, to the idea that there is something called "African American woman-ness," some
essence we can discover. A vast range of identities can be encompassed by "African
American woman." What is important, I think, is to fight on and not about political terms,
such as: agendas for jobs, student funding, health care, child care, housing, reproductive
rights, etc. Empowerment will remain powerless if we do not change power relations.
Ways of feeling are very important, but we have to focus on substantive, radical
institutional transformation as well. Empowerment will remain powerless if we do not
change power . relations.
This is a question for both of you. As student leaders here on the
campus, a lot of times it's hard to motivate students, and as student
leaders, of course, sooner or later we are going to graduate. Do you have
any suggestions as to how to motivate students to become involved in our
internal organization, so that we as students of color as well as student
leaders can all unite and then maybe go off and form other coalitions?
Because internally, if our business isn't really taken care of, how can we
be effective in moving on to deal with other issues of
DAVIS: There is a way in which the movements of the sixties and early seventies are set up
as models of activism for young people today. Incredibly dramatic movements from that
era remain etched in our national memory, whether we experienced them or not, the student
movement, the Black Power Movement, movements of Chicanos, Native Americans,
Asian Americans. Many young people are led to romanticize the participants and the
strategies and styles of those movements. You don't necessarily consider how hard it was
to organize. You don't necessarily realize that we had to grapple with many of the same
questions that confront you in far more complicated forms today.
We often leapt into action even when we had no idea whether our strategies would work. I
think you need to give yourselves permission to think and act in different ways, to take
risks as you try to encourage political action, even when you may not be sure of the
outcome. I can tell you many success stories from the sixties and seventies, but I can also
tell you as many stories that did not end so triumphantly.
When I first came to UC San Diego, I had been studying in Europe. I returned in order to
continue my studies with Herbert Marcuse, but within a context that would also allow me
to participate in the Black movement of that era. However, on this campus, it was weeks
before I even saw another Black person. Finally, two African American undergraduates, a
Caribbean professor and I made plans to comb the campus in order to identify the Black
students who would be potential members of a Black Student Alliance. Since there were so
few students, we reconceptualized the alliance to include staff and workers. It required a
great deal of work to find the people, and then to convince them to participate in our joint
effort. Soon it became clear that we could increase our chances of success if we entered
into a coalition with the Chicanos on campus, who were simultaneously organizing a
Mexican American Youth Association.
This was a period in which nationalist forms of organizing had become extremely popular,
but we decided that as separate organizations, we would be relatively ineffective. But as a
coalition, which eventually invited a white radical student group to join, we could
effectively mount a campaign for control over the Third College, which we named
MARTÍNEZ: I want to emphasize the point about risk. There's not a climate of
taking risks today. There are reasons for that, such as the twelve years of Reagan-Bush,
with all the "me first-ism" and cynicism they bred. That's part of what you're up against
when you talk about how to motivate students today. The seven African American students
who sat down at that Woolworth's lunch counter at the first sit-in, April 1, 1960, had no
idea they were going to start a huge movement, a nationwide movement. No idea. They
just did it. They got ketchup thrown on them and were beaten, arrested. But they took a
chance There has to be some of that spirit today. Let's experiment, we don't have to have
all the answers; we certainly don't have to have the ideology down, you know, the whole
package. But let's see some things that are wrong and try to change them, and take
Sites of Interest -
CS Archives -
Last modified: Dec 7, 1998 by Megan O'Patry.
Please send your comments to the Center for Cultural Studies, email@example.com.