[O29] demands, obtaining a permit

Wed Oct 5 19:46:58 PDT 2005

Hey,
   I'll just be brief: the demands for the protest have been voted on in a trickle over the past two months.  I believe the first one was "troops out now" several months ago, followed by "recruiters out of our schools," last month, followed by a demand on relief for the gulf coast disaster victims two weeks ago.  Second, i don't think a demand on anti-arab racism is that much different in its importance, relevance, or appeal, than a demand on military recruiters or funding human need not war.  In fact, the scapegoating and attacks on arabs and muslims has been clearly central to the war justifications, with barbaric repercussions for arab people in this country and in the middle east.  Right now, many Arab-Americans are afraid to fully get involved in antiwar activity because they are being wiretapped and "preventively detained" by the government.  One key way to build this protest, which, we agree, is an urgent and pressing matter, is to be as inviting as possible to the huge
 antiwar community that arabs and muslims comprise. 
   Anyway, i certainly will be raising this chant and making placards for the march with demands against anti-arab racism and i would strongly encourage others to do the same.

   On another note: what's the status of the permit?  Is there a phone number, fax number, or e-mail we should be flooding with requests that a permit be granted to us immediately and that the city stop their de facto attempts to deny us our first ammendment right to assembly and free speech?  

solidarity,
keith   

rrm48 at aol.com wrote:Hi ,
I know that saying "ditto" to a previous post is not good form on 
Lists. But as one who, because I have to work, wasn't able to attend 
the meeting on Monday I find Christie's Email to the point-- The main 
demands for this action were decided back in August. I think it's 
obvious that defence of the Muslim and Arab communities will be a big 
part of Oct 29th. There will be banners, and certainly speakers, who 
will bring this up. This kind of "Yeah, but what about..." could be 
endless (What about Haiti, Palestine, Hands off Venezuela, Defend 
Anti-Recruitment Fighters etc. etc.). There are many rooms in the house 
of "Bring the Troops home Now"; Money for Human Needs not for 
Occupation; Recrutiters Out of the Schools." When people get there 
those rooms will be filled. As Christie says, at this point we have a 
demonstration to build. By Oct 29th doubtlessly there wil be even more 
issues (i.e.) Relief to New Orleans not Troops to fight the flu!"
Bob Montgomery

-----Original Message-----
From: Chrystie Hopkins 
To: Keith Rosenthal ; o29 at massglobalaction.org
Sent: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:36:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [O29] Arabs and Muslims, "Middle America, " and building 
our movement

Hi Keith,
As one of the people who participated in the vote on Monday, and who 
voted "against", I thought I should respond.

I voted "no" based on procedure. It was my understanding that the 
demands that the October 29 Coalition set for this rally occurred over 
two months ago. There is still so much to do to get this rally to where 
it needs to be and our energy needs to be focusing on pulling this 
thing together, not voting on additional demands. We do not even have a 
permit yet for the Common, we do not have a finalized list of speakers, 
and we need to raise $13,000. We should all be focusing on making this 
rally happen rather then all of this in-fighting and drawn out 
political discussions. We can have all the demands we want, but without 
a permit, or funds, there will be no organized rally.

I do not think that anyone that was at the meeting on Monday disagrees 
with "Stop the racist scapegoating of Arabs and Muslims". The vote was 
on whether or not we were going back and re-examining our list of 
demands. Clearly, with three weeks to go, we need to move on. I am sure 
that there are other ways that we can bring any additional demands, 
especially this one, to the forefront of our rally.

Chrystie

On 10/5/05 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 to the 
Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
--------
_______________________________________________
O29 mailing list
O29 at massglobalaction.org
http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org

--
Chrystie Hopkins
Managing Editor
Meniscus Magazine
www.meniscusmagazine.com

_______________________________________________
O29 mailing list
O29 at massglobalaction.org
http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://massglobalaction.org/pipermail/o29_massglobalaction.org/attachments/20051005/f9975312/attachment.html>