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

[DAVID KEIL]

Amee,

Generally we ask permission to post to listservs copies of limited
circulation communications. In the case below and here, I limited
circulation because the traffic on the listserv has been dozens and
dozens in one day, and people are apparently unsubscribing in crowds.
Until further notice, any communication I send you is OK to broadcast
to the world (put in another way, I will send you no communication I
don't expect to be broadcast to the world). But I hope you will
consider the load you are placing on recipients.

An action coalition does not present an analysis through its demands.
O29 is so diverse, to take one example, that it seems unlikely that it
can present a coherent analysis of anything. It exists simply to
organize an action. Its job is not analysis.

For the action it needs a limited set of demands. The more demands
there are and the wider their scope, the less focus the action will
have.

To seek for the action coalition to develop an analysis of sexism and
racism, for example, goes against its purpose as an action coalition.

If one wants analysis, then I don't understand why one would want a
demand about racism, presenting an analysis of racism, but not a
demand about sexism, presenting an analysis of sexism. I don't
understand why asking for consistency is "playing" demands against
each other or "allying" with an anti-sexist perspective against an
anti-racist one. I don't understand why it is "rather offensive."

I have told you that I admire the clarity of your thinking. What I
forgot to say was that no person's thinking can be perfectly clear all
the time.

Neither the O29 coalition, nor groups of people reading emails, nor a
repro rights coalition, can develop an analysis as clear as can be
developed by one clear-thinking person. That is the task of
clear-thinking people. The result of a clear analysis will not be just
some coalition or group of email readers, but a new political party.
That party will have a program to eliminate institutional racism and
sexism, imperialist war, every kind of oppression, and the material
foundations of these things. That party will pose its demands in
relation to the state and the ruling class. It will laugh at
pseudo-demands like, "Stop racism."

"Stop racism"? How? What kind of racism, institutional or attitudinal?
Anyone can talk loosely about racism and oppose it in the abstract.
Such a "demand" exposes nothing about the racism that pervades the
society. It offers itself as a medal to anyone ready to wear it. It
hardly presents an analysis.

A real demand against racism is concrete, not abstract. Fund the
schools. Restrain the police. Community control. Enforce affirmative
action. Stop the profiling. Stop the threats to wiretap mosques. Stop
the war. End the death penalty. End language discrimination. Open the
books of the corporations to see how racist they are in their daily
behavior. Expropriate corporations guilty of racist crimes.

I have no problem adopting a muddled demand Monday, if the majority
wants it. I will vote no. I hope you will be there to argue for
whatever position you support.

David

On 10/7/05, Huibin Amelia Chew <hachew at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>