[O29] Proposal for 4th Demand

[Huibin Amelia Chew]

on following my train of thoughts to the end, one idea for a 4th
demand/slogan is:

"MILITARISM REINFORCES RACISM, SEXISM, & HOMOPHOBIA"

the purpose of this slogan, while not concrete, would be to set the
stage for the job of the event's speakers, who would then elaborate
and help explain this theme.  it would serve to set the tone and point
direction of thought for the audience, while appealing to those who
'get it.'  it would not be an outright "demand" and perhaps not such a
cause of division or turning people away.  the last bit is
particularly appropriate given the queer rights protest we're allying
with.

unless it's so vague it's incomprehensible -- and if so, I invite
creative suggestions for revision ("militarism reinforces racism,
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, & homophobia")

the other option of handling these dimensions of analysis is a small
grouping of more specific demands.

really... must... sleep.

-Amee

> 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.

this is hypocrisy.  why do we bother to put out "statements" and
"calls to action" then?  why did we include an allusion linking
Katrina to the war in a demand?  I guess this is somehow not
analytical, but empirical??!?  all that for positivist "objectivity."

> 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.

not necessarily.  it depends how well the additional demands reinforce
the central focus.

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

hypocrisy!  and why do we bother to have any analysis at all then, for
instance that the troops must be brought home now, that funds for war
come at the expense of human needs?

> 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.

I never asked you to judge my intellect.  have I judged yours?

it is true real demands are concrete not abstract, but how "concrete"
is funding human needs?  there are different levels of concreteness
that can apply in different situations.  I sense a lack of effort and
experience in creatively thinking on how to grapple with minority
experiences.

-Amee

>
> 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