Ward seems to discount the value of what traditionally has been called "prefigurative work:" building alternatives so a new society begins to take shape within the womb of the old. Further, he states that whites avoid risk by building alternatives, allowing the risk-taking to be done by people of color in the streets.

It seems to me that Ward downplays the huge place in communities of color that is taken by culture work and alternatives. Long before the Nation of Islam took headlines for their alternative-building, African Americans have been re-creating culture and building pride, for example. For some leaders of color, alternatives have been a pragmatic, strategic imperative.

Take, for example, Gandhi's analysis of the condition of the Indian people after being oppressed by white Britain. He saw abundant signs of internalized oppression: dependency, oppression of women, drug abuse, alcoholism, preference for British-made goods, low self-esteem. He hated authoritarianism and did not want to commit his life to a struggle resulting in a brown dictatorship replacing a white dictatorship. Therefore, he launched what he called "the Constructive Programme," which aimed to empower Indians by making them healthy and building alternative institutions. His constructive program was also his anti-racist program.

Did it take time away from direct action? Of course. The Indian National Congress only did an all-out nationwide campaign every decade or so. In the meantime, they did many local direct actions and, just as important, did "prefigurative work." Their strategy engaged the enemy on many fronts, not just the front of street combat. Then when they did launch all-out struggle, they had much more power than they would have simply with raw rage.

Cesar Chavez, realizing that previous one-dimensional efforts to organize farm workers in California failed, designed a strategy that included building co-ops and other alternative institutions as the first stage. He reasoned, correctly as it turned out, that the severely oppressed farm workers needed the skills and confidence of organization-building before they would be ready for combat. The nonviolent struggle he then led was a brilliant success and remains a model especially for organizers working with poor people of color.

Gandhi and Chavez have that in common with guerrilla struggles like the Vietnamese freedom fighters and Nicaragua's Sandinistas: the intention to build the new society while dismantling the old. When activists in the U.S. build a pragmatic strategy for liberation here, we'll need to consider that seriously.

As a white person, I would say that whites have a huge need to create a healthy way of being that sheds arrogance and racism. As a gay man I've also seen ways that homophobia has hurt my people and reduced the energy available for social change, and that's been true among people of color as well as whites. As a man brought up working class I challenge middle class and owning class activists to work on their classism, which would definitely create a more grounded, more sustained, and more effective movement. (10)

So I disagree very strongly with Ward about this point. Unless we just want to recycle oppression with different people in the same roles, alternatives need to be created by both people of color and by white people.