If you're open to thinking dialectically about the constantly changing meaning of revolution, you need to read and re-read the writings of California activist RebeccaSolnit.

Last year, following her visit to the Boggs Center, Rebecca wrote a superb account of the 'quiet revolution' in our city which began with the 'Gardening Angels' (African American elders) planting community gardens on vacant lots. (Detroit Arcadia, Harpers Magazine, July 2007)

Now, in her report of her experience at a New Year's Zapatista Women's Encuentro, she describes how the Zapatista revolution "has been feminist since its inception." (Revolution of the Snails, Common Dreams, 1/16/08, also Boggscenter.org}.

Once upon a time, she explains, "revolution meant to return, to cycle, to rotate. Around 1450 A.D., when time began to appear less cyclical and more linear, it began to mean "instances of a great change in affairs." As feudalism was being replaced by capitalism, it meant "a complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it." That is what it still means to most people.

However, in our own revolutionary times, "the revolution is not some sudden change that has yet to come, but the very transformative and questioning atmosphere in which all of us have lived for the past half century, since perhaps the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955, or the publication of Rachel Carson's attack on the corporate-industrial-chemical complex, Silent Spring, in 1962; certainly, since the amazing events of 1989, when the peoples of Eastern Europe non-violently liberated themselves from their Soviet-totalitarian governments; the people of South Africa undermined the white apartheid regime of that country and cleared the way for Nelson Mandela to get out of jail; or, since 1992, when the Native peoples of the Americas upended the celebration of the 500th anniversary of Columbus's arrival in this hemisphere with a radical rewriting of history and an assertion that they are still here; or even 1994, when this radical rewriting wrote a new chapter in southern Mexico called Zapatismo."

The Zapatistas have given the world a model -- and, perhaps even more important, a language -- with which to re-imagine revolution, community, hope, and possibility.

Five years ago, the Zapatista revolution took as one of its principal symbols the snail and its spiral shell 'caracol,' In August 2003, the Zapatistas renamed their five autonomous communities 'caracoles.' Their revolution spirals outward and backward, away from some of the colossal mistakes of capitalism's savage alienation, industrialism's regimentation, and toward old ways and small things; it also spirals inward via new words and new thoughts.

" The caracol represents entering into the heartÉ the caracol also represents exiting from the heart to walk the world".

"The liberation of the women of the Zapatista regions has been a core part of the struggle. The testimonies addressed what this meant -- liberation from forced marriages, illiteracy, domestic violence, and other forms of subjugation. "They often began with a formal address to the audience that spiraled outward:" And then they would speak of what revolution had meant for them.

"The saddest part is that we couldn't understand our own difficulties, why we were being abused. No one had told us about our rights.'"

"The struggle is not just for ourselves, it's for everyone."

"They spoke of how their lives had improved since 1994. On New Year's Eve, one of the masked women declared: "Who we think is responsible [for the oppressions] is the capitalist system, but now we no longer fear. They humiliated us for too long, but as Zapatistas no one will mistreat us. Even if our husbands still mistreat us, we know we are human beings. Now, women aren't as mistreated by husbands and fathers. Now, some husbands support and help us and don't make all the decisions -- not in all households, but poco a poco. We invite all women to defend our rights and combat machismo."

"They spoke of the practical work of remaking the world and setting the future free, of implementing new possibilities for education, healthcare, and community organization, of the everyday workings of a new society."

"The Zapatistas "have created hope". Many of their hopes have been realized. The testimony of the women dealt with this in specific terms: gains in land, rights, dignity, liberty, autonomy, literacy, a good local government that obeys the people rather than a bad one that tramples them. Under siege, they have created community with each other and reached out to the world."

That is what we are also creating in our five year Detroit- City of Hope campaign. ***

To join in the discussion of last week's column on Obama & MLK. see Letters to the Editor, P.6.

OBAMA AND MLK

Thanks for these insights on Obama. I was trying to reconcile his charisma with his foreign policy statements which I thought were not on the mark, eg. invasion of Pakistan, etc. Just because we elect an official doesn't mean we abrogate our own responsibility to make that leader live up to what we hope and think: one man cannot change a system or institution by himself. Neither can one woman, for that matter, if Hillary should get the nomination. As always, you remind us that our responsibility must be community-based, rather than agreement or adulation of a persona. Russell L., Los Angeles "Obama is really bad news, particularly since he has fooled so many people, but I didn't think Grace Boggs would be one of them. Obama has nothing to do with change beyond the word on a lawn sign. His positions on everything from the war to health insurance to his obeisance to religion to his compliments about Reagan are centrist and in many ways worse than Clinton and certainly worse than Edwards. In fact, what is Obama good on? Does he want to cut the military budget by at least half? No. Is he against nuclear power and a vast reductions nuclear arms? No. And the list goes on; all show; no go.

He's totally corporate and has surrounded himself with the worst cold warriors as foreign policy advisors including Brzezinski, Lake, and others. It's real desperation of the Left to bother with him at all. How many times is the Left going to sing, "Won't Get Fooled Again," and then get fooled again?

If we were a great people, we wouldn't need a great president. All the rest of what she says is spot on and said very eloquently, but she'll feel pretty badly when President Obama invades Venezuela, as will anyone else who falls for such empty rhetoric as we've heard. Peter Werbe., Detroit

The Obama campaign has generated discussion on the streets and the first real communiity criticism of the Clinton era that reaches people beyond the "old choir." The challenge from the black community to stop "loving Clinton" is much more significant than debating government policies. It has also created the first real challenge to the old civil rights leadership which is all about race and a yearning to return to the struggles of the past. In creating another discussion. the campaign provides a much-needed opportunity to move beyond the welfare state, the rights movements of the 20th century and build a real movement from below.

Kucinich's policies are more progressive than Obama's, but his campaign can't unleash a movement of young people to begin doing at the grassroots level what urgently needs to be done and what no one in Washington will ever do unless forced to do so by the grassroots movement. That is the only way serious changes have ever taken place in this country. Grace Boggs comments are not mainly about Obama but about the opportunities that his campaign provides for those who want to build a movement to rebuild community and a new self-governing America from the ground up. They challenge us to explore how a real movement is built. What role does electoral politics play? What is our role? Obama is not going to do our work. Neither would Edwards, Kucinich or anyone running for president.

Our job is to create a new movement. From that movement a new leadership will emerge. Rich Feldman, Detroit

You are right, of course, in your analysis of what is "fundamentally wrong with the country but more thought is needed on the question of Obama and what leadership he really offers." One should know that many of his top advisors are associated with the same imperialistic and militaristic policies you abhor."He has said next to nothing about cities and their future which is inextricately linked to the future of blacks and immigrants. "He offers no insights about education and no concrete view of the country's reconstruction. For sure no candidate has and some of them like Guiliani and Thompson are simply put power mongers and defense nuts. "Dangerous." But we don't expect leadership from them. What and "Why do we expect from Obama? "If he is capable of giving it, he would either come like a trojan horse able to neutralize the race issue so he can get in office to work with the masses to make change or come full throttle forward knowing death through assassination is certain. "He would either build a party or work with one. "Perhaps he is underground in which case we shouldn't know it. In any case the presidential race is not the place to build revolutionary consciousness. It might create conditions to educate but you need an organization that is willing and ready to move city by city to build a movement. The potential is there. "But who is ready to lead?" I doubt Obama. But, sadly, neither are we. Marcia B., Newark.

"I wish him well, but Obama is not my first choice nor do I think he would be Dr. King's. His health care plan is moderate: it includes the insurance companies and does not cover everyone. He isÊindefinite on the military in Iraq, etc. He recently spoke positively of Reagan and talked about his speaking clearly after the "excesses of the 60's". Only Dennis Kuchinich has spoken of universal single payer health care, troops out of Iraq now, civil rights for gays and lesbians. He was blocked from the debate in Las Vegas because he is anti-war and anti-corporations. This is who progressives should support, not because he can't win but because he stands for all that the left stands for."

Reginald W., Washington, D.C

Email Grace Boggs Center,