[O29] moving on

[John Harris]

Hi all,
Keith is opposed to moving on after the Coalition defeated his 
proposal to add another demand. I raised that the demand 
wasn't important enough to Keith to bring it in a couple of 
months ago. In respose he states below: "also, for the record 
(since i have been directly accused otherwise), i only first 
got fully involved in this coalition about a month ago". Keith 
was at the meeting in June where the Fall action was discussed 
and ideas were raised for setting a date. He was also at the 
meeting in August where he raised the idea of changing the date 
of the October 29th Action. Apparently changing the date was 
more important than raising a demand about Arabs and Muslims. 
It would be wrong to consider Keith as a newcommer to the 
process. 

Keith also claims that his proposal was "tabled for several meetings 
in a row". His proposal was tabled on September 26 and voted on October 
3rd. He didn't raise it at the meetings he attended in August and it 
wasn't tabled on the 19th. It therefore could not have been 
"tabled for several meetings in a row". 

The following passage below seems odd to me as well: "i don't see
these as a distraction from "getting our work done," but as a way 
to draw more people into the discussion and give a feeling of 
involvement and "ownership" to new people who will then 

take seriously the task of going out and building for the protest."

I think that the October 29th Coalition has a democratic right to 
be able to take "ownership" of its affairs in order to integrate 
new people into the very critical activities that we need to engage 
in over the next 3 weeks. Keith's proposal has indeed tied up a lot 
of our time and no doubt will tie up much more. The Coalition has 
taken a clear stand on the assault against Arabs, Muslims, and South 
Asians and can be read by checking the link at the top of our Web site.

In solidarity,
John

>From: Keith Rosenthal <keithmr81 at yahoo.com>
>Date: Thu Oct 06 11:26:46 CDT 2005
>To: o29 at massglobalaction.org
>Subject: [O29] moving on

>hey all,?? i agree that we should "move on" towards organizing for the protest, since we do only have a short amount of time (although,?people have been free throughout the course of this discussion to bring up organizing points).?? however, as i said in the beginning, i just wanted to raise my thoughts on the matter because the discussion around demands in the actual planning meeting on Monday was so short that i wanted to give them a fair airing.? ?? also, for the record (since i have been directly accused otherwise), i only first got fully involved in this coalition?about a month ago (before that i was busy organizing a huge antiwar?event with George Galloway, Chuck?Turner, and Naseer Aruri, as well as organizing vans to go down to D.C. for?the protest).? at that first meeting i came to a month ago, i raised the demand about arabs and muslims and it was subsequently tabled for several meetings in a row because?of "process," because the protest "was only a month and a half away,"?and because we had to "move on."? finally, and thankfully, discussion around the demand was opened up for no more than 10 minutes at the last meeting because of constant pressure to do so on my part.? ?? the motion failed in a tie vote, and that's fine if that's?the democratic will of the group.? we are all still united to build this protest and end this war.? but i said this at the first meeting i went to and i'll say it again, we cannot cut out of this process the democratic debate and discussion over different ideas we have for the shape of the protest.? i don't see these as a distraction from "getting?our work done," but as a way to draw more people into the discussion and give a feeling of involvement and "ownership" to new people who will then take seriously the task of going out and building for the protest.? ?? if anything, we should be seeking to get new people involved and coming back to the planning meetings to help us build for the protest.? that means that?in addition to doing outreach, our meetings have to be open, inviting, accessible, and?exude?a desire to take the time to draw new people into the discussion, hear?out their ideas and concerns, and take the time to give them full discussion, not trample all over them and indefinitely table their proposals because "the big chiefs have to get to work."? ?? in my experience, it is quite possible (and necessary) to combine the utmost in discussion and democracy with the utmost in organizing.? otherwise, at the end of the day, there is nobody but the "big chiefs" left standing alone in the room.?Solidarity,Keith Rosenthal?
>
>DAVID KEIL <dmkeil at gmail.com> wrote:The Coalition needs to bend over backwards to support victims of
>racism, and sexism too, and oppressions of all kinds. These include
>the Haitians, some of whom joined the effort for a fall action before
>two-thirds of the other endorsers, before October 29 was even
>officially called. The question is how to bend over backwards?
>
>Keith begins to indicate that the October 29 Coalition is in his view
>less than "truly representative", that it is going towards being an
>"an all-white movement". He has a formula for solving this problem he
>sees: change the demands of the action. These are all new discoveries
>by Keith, who has attended fall-action meetings since June without
>announcing these findings.
>
>The quote from Pastor Niemuller seems to imply that failing to support
>Keith's motion is similar to failing to speak out for Arabs and
>Muslims, as Germans failed to speak out for victims of the Nazis. Is
>this the case, Keith? If so, is this the level to which you hope to
>take the discussion?
>
>David
>
>On 10/6/05, Keith Rosenthal <KEITHMR81 at YAHOO.COM>wrote:
>>
>> 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<BR>> 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<BR>> 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<BR>> Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came<BR>> for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not<BR>> speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not<BR>> speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out<BR>> 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<BR>> 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.<BR>><BR>> The best way to link up everyone in the coalition with the effort to<BR>> end scapegoating of Arabs and Muslims, and the best way to do all the<BR>> things that all the demands in and out of the Statement imply, is to<BR>> build a big, inclusive O29. It is the Arab and Muslim groups, not the<BR>> Coalition, that need to lead the effort against scapegoating. All the<BR>> endorsing groups can join hands with the Arab and Muslim brothers and<BR>> sisters. If O29 is big, then the anti-scapegoating effort can be built<BR>> to be big. If O29 is small because the meetings degenerate into<BR>> debates about the relative importance of various issues and demands,<BR>> 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<BR>> MCs to highlight the concern about the scapegoating of Arabs and<BR>> Muslims as well as South Asians who Keith left out but were very<BR>> extensively targeted in the sweeps carried out during the "Ashcroft<BR>> Raids". The concern can be raised by rally speakers and we can make<BR>> 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<BR>> need to move on," in Chrystie's words.
>>
>> David Keil
>>
>> ________________________________
>> 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