[O29] Arabs and Muslims, "Middle America, " and building our movement

[John Harris]

Hi all,
Keith takes a quote from one person in the debate and fails to address the
central
issue that led to the decision to reject his proposal. Why does this demand
"trump
all the others" that were raised many weeks ago? The Coalition decided to
include
representatives of the various struggles on the platform of the rally and
also to adopt
a "Statement of the Coalition" at the top of the Web site: Oct29.org. I
agree with David
as to the reason for the central focus adopted for the Action on October
29th:

"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 who have even an ounce of humanity. 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."
I also take issue with part of Keith's analysis of the Democrats:
"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."
This implies that the Democrats are on our side but are held back by "their
concern to not alienate "swing-voters
in middle America." This in my view is false. The Democrats in Washington
have the same agenda as Bush.
They only differ on how to advance a common agenda.

Unfortunately the "Ashcroft Raids" were carried out with little opposition
from either of the national antiwar
coalitions. It was not a question of another demand but more of a question
of organizing a national campaign.
I proposed at the time that "Stop the Ashcroft Raids!" take on a more
central focus of the work of the antiwar
movement because at the time it was a central feature of the drive toward
war. This was during the period
when the big majority of jailings and deportations of Arabs, Muslims, and
South Asians took place. I certainly
didn't resort to the kind of baiting that is taking place now. We should all
live and learn and try to move forward.

This debate would have been more useful 2 months ago. It would be good to
continue it after October 29th.
In solidarity,
John
 -----Original Message-----
From: O29-bounces at massglobalaction.org
[mailto:O29-bounces at massglobalaction.org]On Behalf Of Keith Rosenthal
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 3:37 PM
To: o29 at massglobalaction.org
Subject: [O29] Arabs and Muslims, "Middle America, " and building our
movement


  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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://massglobalaction.org/pipermail/o29_massglobalaction.org/attachments/20051006/f465e54f/attachment.html>