[O29] short response to david on demands: who is being bombed?

[Keith Rosenthal]

David, et. al.,
 
   Political discussions and democratic debate do not hinder organizing; they help it, broaden it, strengthen it, clarify it, and educate it.  
   David says, "It is the Arab and Muslim groups, not the Coalition, that need to lead the effort against scapegoating"  I disagree -- it is both.  The coalition needs to bend over backwards to support and give sanctuary to those being used, as an entire group, as a reason for the war!  And we need to bend over backwards to let Muslims and Arabs know they can trust our movement to defend them.  Finally, the coalition, if it were truly representative, would be comprised of the Arab and Muslim groups, who are, in fact, in the process of trying to organize against anti-Arab racism.  We can have an all-white movement that speaks to the issues of those in "middle America," or we can strive to have an all-inclusive, democratic, and diverse march that speaks to the issues of those most clearly and directly targeted by the war and by the government's main public justifications for the war.  
   Everybody knows the war on Iraq is first and foremost an attack on Arabs and Muslims (who live in Iraq and this country).  The US is bombing Arab men, women, and children in Iraq and terrorizing them in the US.  This is immediate, obvious, and evident to all but those who refuse to see . . . and our silence only lets the government off the hook in what could be easily exposed as yet another example of US racism and injustice, thereby strengthening the movement against the whole of the US war rationale.
   As Pastor Martin Niemoeller wrote of the deafening silence of many Germans during the Nazi ascension to power: "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they  came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And  when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

 
Solidarity,
Keith Rosenthal
  
   
 


DAVID KEIL <dmkeil at gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Chrystie's post. We should not add new demands to the
four that have defined our action in the eyes of all endorsers so
far. The demands as they stand now are: "Bring the Troops Home Now!
End the Occupation of Iraq! Military Recruiters Out of Our Schools!
>From the Gulf Coast to New England and Beyond, Fund Human Needs -- Not
War and Occupation!" All address the war in Iraq directly.

Many other valid demands, not so directly related to the war in Iraq,
could be elevated to central status. With so many questions at the
center, nothing would be central and the focus of the action would be
lost. The issue of focus has been raised in the past week but has not
been addressed by supporters of the effort to expand the list of
central demands. Our action focus needs to be the war in Iraq.

In light of the divided vote, Monday, a thorough discussion of the
character of the Boston antiwar coalition is needed. The character of
a coalition is summarized in the demands it poses day to day in its
main publicity.

I think that the best time for this discussion would be after October
29. At that time, we should agree to take some space to discuss the
history, future, and foundations of our movement, what unites us and
what divides us, without votes or organizational urgency at the
outset. We need to do this in a spirit of cooperation but also of
possible confrontation of ideas.

For now, let's not visit the demands issue again for votes. There
isn't time to do it properly. How do we weigh input from all the
endorsing organizations, which endorsed based on at most four demands,
not five? How do we consider all the alternatives, all the arguments
on all sides, without interfering with our building activities?

Keith does not reply to the most telling reason given for defeating
his motion Monday: To add one demand, not so directly related to the
war issue, would change the character of the coalition and open up the
door for a time-consuming discussion of five or six additional,
equally valid demands, and of their relative priority in a
pecking-order of demands. As Chrystie points out, we don't have time
for this.

This discussion is not about whether to be radical. It is about how to
build a focused antiwar coalition.

The central discussions and debates unfolding today in U.S. politics
surround the war in Iraq and the unfolding catastrophe on the Gulf
Coast. The massive resources being used to subjugate Iraqis stand in
stark contrast to the massive challenges faced by working people on
the Gulf Coast in fullfilling their dire needs. The demands of the
October 29th action flow from the deepening polarization developing as
this debate unfolds. The demand to boot out military recruiters also
flows from the widespread activity and broad debate that has been
generated throughout the country. These demands are readily
understandable to all. They command the need for widespread action
and unity and open the door to developing an understanding of the
overall assault on our lives and rights as reflected in the broader
battles and issues that will be raised and represented at the action.

The demand formally moved by Keith as a fifth slogan coincides with a
demand already expressed in a Statement adopted unanimously by the
Coalition in August (http://www.oct29.org/wst_page2.html). Hence the
question Monday was not whether to oppose scapegoating, but rather
whether to elevate this issue above the others discussed in the
Statement by changing the central core of slogans.

The Statement deals with attacks being carried out by the war makers
internationally as well as developes a discussion of the war against
working people at home. The Statement at the top of the Oct29.org Web
site should be examined. It reads: "In recent years, tens of thousands
of Arab, Muslim, and South Asian immigrants have been targeted for
roundups and political sweeps resulting in mass arrests, jailings, and
deportations. Many thousands of have been picked up and held with
little or no access to lawyers or their families and incarcerated
based on retroactive minor offenses or without any charges at all! Not
surprisingly, thousands of Latin Americans and others have been
included in these sweeps as well. This policy has been sustained
through a campaign promoting fear, ignorance, and xenophobic appeals.
Laws like the Patriot Act and others allowing 'preventive detention'
without charges based on 'secret evidence' and holding prisoners
incommunicado are an attack on everyone's basic rights. The assault on
immigrants must be ended immediately. The Patriot Act and other laws
that undermine our democratic rights must be repealed. Human Rights
for All!".

The demand for ending scapegoating of Arabs and Muslims is related to
the war in Iraq, but not more than a number of other demands in the
Statement and not in the Statement. The demands for full access to
reproductive health services, and for equal rights for women, for
example, are related to the war in that the U.S. military denies this
access to its female members, and in that the occupation operates
under a general U.S. government ban on repro rights for women in other
countries and also is the sole support for (hence responsible for
policies of) a semi-puppet regime that denies equal rights for Iraqi
women.

Perhaps even more striking is the relevance to the war in Iraq of the
issues of U.S. intervention against Venezuela, Palestine, and Haiti,
not to mention Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and other countries. It is
hardly possible to elevate any demand not directly addressing the war
in Iraq to central status without elevating these issues, along with
women's rights and other issues.

The best way to link up everyone in the coalition with the effort to
end scapegoating of Arabs and Muslims, and the best way to do all the
things that all the demands in and out of the Statement imply, is to
build a big, inclusive O29. It is the Arab and Muslim groups, not the
Coalition, that need to lead the effort against scapegoating. All the
endorsing groups can join hands with the Arab and Muslim brothers and
sisters. If O29 is big, then the anti-scapegoating effort can be built
to be big. If O29 is small because the meetings degenerate into
debates about the relative importance of various issues and demands,
then O29 won't contribute much to the anti-scapegoating effort.

As Chrystie points out, there are ways to highlight issues like
scapegoating when we hold the march and rally. Let's agree to ask the
MCs to highlight the concern about the scapegoating of Arabs and
Muslims as well as South Asians who Keith left out but were very
extensively targeted in the sweeps carried out during the "Ashcroft
Raids". The concern can be raised by rally speakers and we can make
sure it's not only Arab and Muslim speakers. All this can be done
without changing the character of the coalition. The coalition already
has a position, expressed in the Statement.

I respect Keith's and Ty's special concern about the scapegoating. We
have differences on the organizational-political methods for building
opposition to it. Let's discuss basic strategy after October 29. "We
need to move on," in Chrystie's words.

David Keil


		
---------------------------------
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/df7bebfa/attachment.html>