[O29] From Ty de Pass: demands, obtaining a permit_fyi

[John Harris]

What you propose is indeed a "valid political project" and
the discussion about how to pursue it will continue long
after October 29th.
John

-----Original Message-----
From: O29-bounces at massglobalaction.org
[mailto:O29-bounces at massglobalaction.org]On Behalf Of Huibin Amelia Chew
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:35 PM
To: DAVID KEIL; o29 at massglobalaction.org
Cc: gary hicks
Subject: Re: [O29] From Ty de Pass: demands, obtaining a permit_fyi


Instead of playing the demand about racism against a demand about
patriarchy/sexism ("the oppression of women") as you do below -- which
is divide and conquer, in my view -- why can't we find a way to
balance out the analysis we present through our demands by
incorporating both?  I find it rather offensive that you are
attempting to "ally" with an anti-sexist perspective in order to
apologize for the lack of race analysis.

this does *not* mean a laundry list of 50 more demands.  I think the
important thing is finding a way to acknowledge the existence of race
hierarchy/patriarchy as a *valid political project*, whatever specific
manifestation this takes -- and granted, in a way that is not
completely incomprehensible to those we're trying to reach.  *that* is
not the same as trying to portray *every* specific kind of
manifestation of racism, sexism, class exploitation, homophobia, etc.,
related to the war.  it is simply trying to paint some broad
brush-strokes which help point people's directions of thought.

granted, there is not much time left now, but I disagree with the way
you are making your argument below.  rather than being more inclusive
to those who would attempt such a project as above, you are closing
off the process.

-Amee


On 10/7/05, DAVID KEIL <dmkeil at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ty,
>
> I agree that this dialog is needed. I'm sure that some of us haven't
> been listening enough. One needs to be reminded of some things.
>
> For those opposed to Keith's motion, I think the critical issue is
> sharpness of focus. We need to draw the line somewhere to limit the
> scope of the action. It's not an action for general social change, but
> an antiwar action. We can issue statements about racism and
> scapegoating, host speakers against these, organize news conferences
> that join the war and racism at home, make placards connecting the
> issues, but we can't dilute our focus on the war. The focus is in the
> four demands.
>
> For this coalition, the best way to resist the scapegoating and racism
> is to build a big and sharply focused antiwar action and invite lots
> of speakers who will join together build a movement to stop the racist
> campaign. That's what is being argued.
>
> That said, it wouldn't kill the value of the action for a fifth demand
> to be added, any more than it kills the value of the action to be
> missing the fifth demand.
>
> There is less time now to discuss demands than there was in April
> through August. How much time to give to that at coalition meetings is
> a judgment call. A number of people out building the action have
> expressed impatience with the debate over demands. After the evenly
> divided vote last Monday, those with Keith and those opposed to his
> motion are all in a position now of needing a way to get past this
> issue without just backing down. One solution is to have a friendly
> debate, to agree that debate is healthy, to take a vote, and to move
> on. If we can do that in an atmosphere of a bigger and bigger action
> and coalition, then we are going to get through Monday.
>
> Whatever is decided Monday will have to be revisited later. It is
> clear to me that the character of the ongoing Boston antiwar coalition
> has not been decided yet. It will be decided after every community of
> Boston is better represented within it.
>
> I haven't heard feedback about the demands issue from endorsers. I
> think there's no reason they would not want to hear the analysis you
> present. Offending endorsers is definitely not a motivation for
> rejecting a fifth demand. The issue I had raised was one of process;
> the endorsers would need to have time to consider and discuss
> priorities of issues if a new demand were raised. It appears to me
> that this is clear from the change in the scapegoating motion from
> last week to this; as soon as a domestic demand is raised, its scope
> becomes an issue that needs discussion. What about the scapegoating
> and oppression of women? If any issue trumps all others by virtue of
> sheer quantity, this one does it. But trumping is not what it's about
> either.
>
> I think that the growing antiwar movement presents an opportunity to
> unify across geographic, class, and ethnoracial lines and I don't
> think we have found a way to take advantage of it. You describe the
> situation accurately: "the real challenge of movement-building
> remains: building a lot of new relationships, establishing structures
> for reflection/critique/dialogue, and deepening our collective
> understanding of the barriers and opportunities before us, and
> grappling w/notions of solidarity and mutual accountability." The
> relationships and structures in place are inadequate for any mutual
> accountability. A collective understanding will only occur based on
> more adequate relationships and structures. I think there is a common
> desire to improve these.
>
> I have differences with one sentence of your note that I need to cite:
> "Please help me understand what anyone gained from advancing the
> limited demand that US troops be brought home from SE Asia—that is,
> anyone besides the Right." I think that we shouldn't underestimate the
> effect of actions by millions in favor of that demand in getting it
> met. We created an environment for LBJ in which he could not appear in
> public and eventually had to decline the second-term nomination; we
> created an environment for Nixon in which he had to claim he was
> withdrawing from Vietnam, almost from the time he went into office,
> and in which he eventually had to resign.
>
> Four factors joined together: the Black uprisings, the resistance of
> the Vietnamese, the resistance of the GIs, and the massive pressure of
> the movement for Out Now. Eventually the warmakers had to retreat
> rather than advance. Now we seem to have them on the ropes again. It's
> our opportunity. A defeat for them in Vietnam meant that Iran and
> Nicaragua were safe to gain independence too. A defeat for them in
> Iraq will mean openings everywhere, including here. What unifies the
> opponents of racism in action right now is the war in Iraq. By
> bringing them to the same place at the end of October we can unify
> them on other issues too.
>
> David
>
>  ________________________________
>
>
> From: Ty dePass [mailto:maceito at comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 18:15
> To: 'DAVID KEIL'; 'o29 at massglobalaction.org'
> Subject: RE: [O29] demands, obtaining a permit
>
> David – sorry, man, i don't buy it. you're saying that adding a demand
> condemning the systematic victimization of Arabs/Muslims living in the
> US since 9/11 would open the floodgates for a deluge of other "equally
> valid" demands—like the denial of reproductive rights for women in
> uniform? further, that this demand (which is principally an
> anti-racist one) is not really as "directly related" to the conduct of
> the US war in Iraq as the existing 4—Out Now; End the Occupation;
> Military Recruiters Out of Schools; and Fund Human Needs, Not War and
> Occupation—so anything more is…clutter? lastly, that the
> responsibility for leading on this particular issue rests primarily
> w/the Arab/Muslim community. in general, you defend the vote outcome,
> basically drawing out Chrystie's point about preserving the integrity
> of the process, the sharpness of focus, and the press of logistical
> concerns. did i miss anything?
>
> while i certainly share your sense of urgency over ending this war, i
> keep asking myself what ending US hostilities in Iraq will mean in 10,
> 20, 30 years from now—how would you describe the long term benefit of
> the US withdrawal from Vietnam? i'm dead serious. despite the hard
> lesson that wars are won/lost by people, not technological hardware,
> we're at it again. i mean, isn't our government again playing cowboy
> in someone else's yard? haven't the victorious Vietnamese people left
> their rice paddies to sweat for Nike? and aren't most of the vets from
> that war still dealing w/myriad psychological, physiological and
> sociological maladies? so please help me understand what anyone gained
> from advancing the limited demand that US troops be brought home from
> SE Asia—that is, anyone besides the Right.
>
> anyway, looking back over the last 30+ years, it seems that the only
> ones actually learning anything from that war are the folks promoting
> this war. for them, the humiliating defeat in Vietnam was a bitter
> setback, but one which merely slowed w/o reversing the course of US
> imperial designs. likewise, the destruction of Jim Crow was quickly
> grasped as signaling the need for new language and structures for
> explaining and defending white supremacy. indeed, if we take
> arch-conservative Irving Kristol at his word,
> neo-conservatives—"liberal who were mugged by reality"—were the
> unanticipated spawn of the apparent triumph over war-and-racism (two
> of Dr. King's "evil triplets"). but, borrowing a leaf from our book,
> the reactionaries didn't mourn, they organized—while we gloated, then
> temporized.
>
> moreover, reflecting on the content of the 4 demands, i'm struck by
> how racially neutral they read: the "troops" are faceless aggregates,
> lacking any identity beyond their camo uniforms—but we know better
> than that, don't we? we also know that Iraqis are commonly referred to
> as either sand-niggers or haadjis by US military personnel—and while
> Iraqis and many other Arabs are actually categorized "white" by law,
> we recognize that racism is an expression of a socio-political
> arrangement, yes? and while NCLB doesn't exempt high schools in Newton
> or Brookline, we can be assured that the parents of students attending
> those schools got their yellow postcards into the mail by last
> Friday's deadline—can we confidently say the same for parents of
> students at Madison Park or the Burke? finally, after years of
> fighting for some recognition of where the government finds the funds
> for war w/o raising taxes, a concern for human needs still falls far
> short of an explicit anti-racist demand. perhaps i'm being
> oversensitive—or perhaps you're not being sensitive enough?
>
> so, what does all this political analysis contribute toward the
> immediate and pressing task of mobilizing large numbers for Oct.29th?
> admittedly, not much for the short term. Chrystie and David seem clear
> that many (if not most) current endorsers don't want to hear it. pity;
> because beyond orchestrating the next grand public spectacle, the real
> challenge of movement-building remains: building a lot of new
> relationships, establishing structures for
> reflection/critique/dialogue, and deepening our collective
> understanding of the barriers and opportunities before us, and
> grappling w/notions of solidarity and mutual
> accountability—recognizing that, ultimately, if we're not prepared to
> fight for the future we want, we'll have to find a way to endure the
> future we'll undoubtedly get. (hopefully figuring out who "we" are
> along the way) 'nuff said?
>
> ("tio") Ty
>


--
"There are plenty of women in Fallujah who have testified they were
raped by American soldiers... They are nearby the secondary school for
girls inside Fallujah. When people came back to Fallujah the first
time they found so many girls who were totally naked and they had been
killed."

  -- Mohammed Abdulla, executive director of the Study Center for
Human Rights and Democracy in Fallujah, quoted in
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000251.php
_______________________________________________
O29 mailing list
O29 at massglobalaction.org
http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org