[O29] Arabs and Muslims, "Middle America, " and building our movement
Gus
gustavo at espada.biz
Wed Oct 5 12:55:38 PDT 2005
Hear hear! The racist scapegoating of Arabs and Muslims was exactly
what the 9-11 attacks were designed to accomplish. Not having been at
the meeting I don't know, but I'm assuming 9-11 truth is not going to be
a demand? In any case, people who are afraid of being "too radical"
should quit the anti-war movement and go work for pro-war Hillary as she
prepares to run for Prez. Enough of this nonsense about "moderation"
and not alienating certain types of people. The truth is the truth, not
some radical pipedream.
On 10/5/2005 3:36 PM, Keith Rosenthal wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> I just wanted to throw a couple of thoughts out there regarding the
> vote and discussion at Monday's O29 meeting concerning demands for
> this protest -- specifically the demand: "Stop the racist scapegoating
> of Arabs and Muslims" also, since the political discussion around the
> demand was short and choppy in the meeting, i wanted to respond to
> several things here.
> I think it was a mistake that this demand was voted down in a tie
> vote (9-9), and some of the justifications presented for why it should
> be voted down have the potential to set a bad precedent for our
> movement. it was stated that we "don't want a radical protest, which
> will only draw 1,000 people," "that we have to reach out to middle
> America," and that we should learn the lesson of the Vietnam antiwar
> movement which, "got the hard-hats to stop beating up the students,
> but instead join the students." i think this perspective is erroneous
> and somewhat mythical.
> First of all, i don't think we should have a laundry list of
> demands on the flyer, nor do i think we should talk about everything
> under the sun on the flyer. but i don't think a demand around arabs
> and muslims is "beyond the pale," too radical, or will bring less
> people out to the march. in fact, i think it can draw in more people
> pissed about the Patriot Act, Guantanamo mistreatment, and, of course,
> will draw in Arabs and Muslims, who just recently have been making
> pleas to Romney to stop the plan to wiretap local Mosques! where is
> the antiwar movement on this question of the supposedly imminent and
> overwhelming threat that "Muslim and Arab extremists" pose to "our
> freedoms"? the demand around Palestine at the September 24th protest
> certainly did not make that historic march any smaller, so why would a
> demand to stop anti-Arab racist scapegoating make our march any smaller?
> Second, we ought to be less afraid right now of being "too
> radical." the single-most important figure in revitalizing mass
> antiwar activity recently has been none other than that "raving
> radical" Cindy Sheehan, who supports Palestine, the Iraq resistance to
> occupation, refuses to vote for pro-war Democrats, and calls the
> current war "imperialist." she is resonating with people because the
> reality is that right now, in the aftermath of the sinking occupation
> of Iraq and the Hurricane Katrina disaster, most regular people are
> growing increasingly fed up with this war and with everything having
> to do with the current government. right now, people are increasingly
> fed up with even the Democratic Party for not taking a firm enough
> stand against Bush and the war because of their concern to not
> alienate "swing-voters in middle America."
> Finally, who is this mythical "middle America," and how do we win
> them? the reality is that right now, a majority of people are against
> the war and against Bush. according to polls, 1 out of 3 people
> consider themselves */part/* of the antiwar movement -- that's 100
> million people nationwide. in boston, that's roughly 200,000 people.
> once we get these people organized, it will be easy from there to win
> the other antiwar 1/3 to our side. also, who are we trying to win to
> this movement? soccer moms (like cindy sheehan)? sure! arabs,
> muslims, blacks, gays, women, students, latinos, workers, etc., (i.e.,
> the majority of people)? we must!
> And if i may ask, which hard-hats are beating up antiwar students
> today? it's my understanding that the AFL-CIO is against the war in
> Iraq (this includes organized construction workers, i believe).
> remember, /we are the majority/! soldiers and military families are
> increasingly on our side. now is not the time for conservative,
> cautious moderation, but rather for bold, confident, and aggressive
> steps forward.
> During the vietnam war, these so-called "hard hats" (do you mean
> workers, soldiers, what?), were not won over to the side of the
> "students" because the "students" moderated their message. rather,
> they were won over to the antiwar movement because they simply grew
> more and more disgusted with the war and the government and felt they
> simply had to do something about it. in other words, people were
> going through a process where they were beginning to think much more
> critically about the government, if for no other reason than because
> of the increasing reality of what the government was doing to the
> Vietnamese people and to the US soldiers. this is precisely what is
> happening right now. the way we are going to win these people is not
> by moderating our message, but by taking every opportunity to expose
> every lie, smokescreen, and brutality that this government is carrying
> out in the name of this war . . . and in all of our names. in so
> doing, we will give expression to growing millions of people disgusted
> by the government and simply waiting for someone to confidently
> address the government's barbarity, blow-for-blow (e.g., Cindy Sheehan).
>
> In conclusion, i warn against the broader framework, justification,
> and implications used to defeat the demand on anti-arab racism at
> monday's meeting. it sounds dangerously similar to the logic employed
> by Kerry supporters in the last election that we have to moderate our
> message to appeal to "swing-voters in middle-America" in order to
> win. not only did that strategy, in fact, lead to a defeat for our
> side, but it also taught movement activists how to hold their tongues
> instead of raising their voices. as the 2006 congressional elections
> begin to be talked about, we would do well to remember this lesson,
> and refuse this time around to repeat our mistakes. the way to grow
> is to confidently fight for our principles and to win more people to
> them -- in tandem with their own developing criticisms of the war and
> the government -- and not by "moderating ourselves," "politically
> disciplining ourselves," or "holding our noses."
> Again, this is not to say that we should have a laundry-list of
> every possible demand on the flyer. but this is to say that we have
> little to lose and much to gain by adding clearly relevant demands and
> letting our movement take an increasingly critical posture towards the
> government's various policies and ideological buttresses. and we
> ought to be wary of making arguments that would set a precedent for
> our movement to balk and moderate itself in order to appeal to some
> mythical "middle-America" at the expense of standing up for our
> beliefs and for those who are most oppressed and victimized by this
> war and this government.
>
>
> Solidarity,
> Keith Rosenthal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! for Good
> Click here to donate <http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/> to the
> Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>O29 mailing list
>O29 at massglobalaction.org
>http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://massglobalaction.org/pipermail/o29_massglobalaction.org/attachments/20051005/d2904f9d/attachment.html>
More information about the O29
mailing list