[O29] please. this is not about getting a merit badge.

Fri Oct 7 11:06:10 PDT 2005

hey,
   please.  this is not about getting a merit badge.  this is about the importance of the movement understanding how racism, especially, against Arabs, is inextricably linked to the war on Iraq, and that, morally and strategically, if we are going to stop this war, we have to forge a united, multiracial movement, that stands against the scapegoating or attacks on people of color as a way to divide and conquer us.  
   this is why i agree with Ty and others who have argued that we should support this demand as part of the protest. (and by the way, what are you talking about, gary?  you're trying to criticize and bait me, as a white person, who is pushing for our movement to publicly stand against racism?  what sense does that make?  i'm arguing for this not only because of my conversations with people of color, including arabs and muslims in particular, but because it's the right thing to do -- politically, tactically, and strategically -- in order to build a bigger, stronger protest and antiwar movement.)  by adding this demand, we will double and triple our chances of drawing people of color out to the protest who will see it on the flyer and be immediately attracted.  
   i'm curious, gary, are you worried that adding a demand on racism will make the march too "radical?" because this is the logic you used when arguing why we shouldn't even support the demand "Troops Out Now!" so i'm wondering if there is a similar line of reasoning going on?
   finally, it shouldn't be too difficult for us to have a civil and fraternal debate on this matter monday.  the argument that says that if we open this discussion and vote on monday we will create "chaos," and "division," are, i think just as untrue as the argument that says that if the US leaves Iraq immediately it will create "chaos," and "division," (which are, by the way, thinly veiled racist ideas that the Iraqis are incapable of handling their own affairs without the US).  
   if we can't discuss this together, how can we expect to be able to discuss anything of importance with each other in a civil manner?  how can we expect to be able to organize democratic and open movements?  we need to learn how to do this anyway as we go about the business of coalition-building.  we should debate, discuss, take a clear vote, and then move on as one, united against the war, whatever the outcome.

Solidarity,
Keith Rosenthal

gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com> wrote:hi:

it has now become more than apparent that this argument isn't about the demands of the march, even though this is how it's being presented. 

this argument is all about a bunch of (mostly) white folks purporting to be socialists, progressives, etc. who for the life of them can't get a handle on the centrality of the struggle against their own chauvinisms.

this argument is also about folks with purportedly socialist and progressive politics who for reasons known only to god and their cadre leaders have GOT TO BE the first kids on their block to come up with a correct line on these matters. hence whoever achieves this can go on to seize hegemony, power, or whatever elusive bragging rights (or is it rites?) and glory as long as folks listen.

finally, ty is more than right about how it has taken this long to come to this point, since at least 911. this is downright pitiful and disgraceful. so---------------------

i agree with david that monday night is NOT the time for this discussion, since we all know-- yes we do, because we all know how we are!-- that there will be no two for, two against a given proposal ----------------- but a free-for-all in place of the time needed to actually put this event together. and frankly, some of us (myself included) who were involved in the march 20 event, and some of us (myself not included) in the followup to the december event of last year, have all been there done that. and obviously, the april 23 conference didn't/couldn't resolve matters because at bottom that conference was all about getting together people for a fall action by way of a few workshops thrown in--- as though these latter would magically infuse us with the intelligence needed to carry on without the hassles which we've been privy to on this past week's emails.

so let's get down to organizing business monday night and check our ideologies and egos at the door.

gary

DAVID KEIL <dmkeil at gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sorry to hear of this decision to take a divisive approach Monday.
The issues are complex and can't be decided democratically after only
two speakers for and against. I suggest that a committee form (I
suggested some names -- Chris Desir, Elisabeth Leonard, Julie Keefe,
Amee Chew, Chrystie Hopkins, Karen Slater, Judith Roderick, and would
add Reem Abou-Samra) to discuss this question by email and phone
before the Monday meeting. This committee should try to work out a
consensus or at least an acceptable committee majority that
acknowledges in a friendly way whatever is the minority position. The
last thing we need is a mutually aggressive atmosphere at a work
meeting. I feel as if the choice offered is, "Back off or we slug it
out now." I don't like that choice.

On 10/6/05, Keith Rosenthal wrote:
> Hey all,
> After further discussion on and off this listserve, it is clear that this
> debate is really important and that the space available at last monday's
> meeting was insufficient for all sides to clearly air their ideas on the
> question of adding a demand against anti-arab racism. Moreover, after
> further discussion with organizations of color and other concerned activists
> (including District 7 activists, and Muslim and Arab student and community
> groups), it is clear that the vote we took on Monday was (to say the least)
> inconclusive and needs to be revisited. Because it was a tie vote, and not
> a clear win or lose either way, it is clear that we needed this discussion
> and our now in a better position to take an informed vote again.
> In light of Bush's speech today declaring the necessity of war on Islam
> as the "prime reason" for continuing the war on Iraq. And in light of the
> mounting anger amongst people of color and the rest of the population about
> the government's racist neglect of people in New Orleans as a direct
> connection with the US war on Iraq; it is important that we vote again, and
> pass a demand against racism.
> This need not be a long-drawn out process, but can be a simple vote with
> maybe one or two speakers for and against so that our group can have some
> real closure on this question.
> One thing, however: this is not about "process" and it is wrong for
> anyone to base a "no" vote on "process." If you are for adding a demand
> against racism to the flyer because you think it will be crucial in helping
> to broaden the protest and draw in larger numbers of people, then vote for
> it. If you are against adding a demand on racism because you think that it
> will be a liability, or lead to a smaller turn-out, then vote against it.
> Period. It's as simple as that and need not be more complex.
> Oh yeah, and to those who would like to hurl insults and jokes at people
> like myself for trying to raise a demand against racism (Suren): I wonder
> how much of a joke you think the attacks on Arabs and Muslims in this
> country and in Iraq have been and I hope we are not teaching children to
> laugh at the ease with which we can brush aside the importance of dealing
> openly with the oppression of people victimized by this war.
>
> At this Monday's meeting, therefore, we should re-vote on a demand
> against racism. And, in order to hopefully make the demand more ammenable
> to some people's objections, I am proposing that it be worded as such: "Stop
> the Racist Attacks on the Black, Latin@, Arab & Muslim Communities".
>
> Whichever way this turns out, we should all be united in building this
> protest and building a collective movement that can stop this war. However,
> I recommend that in order to do this most effectively, we should pass this
> demand, or at the very least, get some clear closure on this one way or the
> other, and not leave things at last week's tie vote.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
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. _______________________________________________
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/20051007/e92425e7/attachment.html>