[O29] Monday meeting, open to public, one protest/one flyer
David Rolde
davidrolde at comcast.net
Mon Oct 10 08:02:45 PDT 2005
This isn't about Keith. This is about a proposed coalition demand
against racism. The US war on Iraq is being justified with racist
rhetoric about being part of a larger "war on terror". Arabs and
Muslims are being demonized as "terrorists". Last week Bush said
that if the US war in Iraq fails that the terrorists will go on to
set up a "radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia".
This kind of rhetoric is terrorism on Bush's part, an attempt by Bush
to use racism (against Arabs and Muslims) to terrorize the American
people into supporting US imperialist wars. Countering this rhetoric
should be a central project of the anti-war movement. The war is not
about protecting Americans from "terrorists". The war is about
control of oil, about maintaining an advantage for the US economy and
currency over other capitalist blocks, about maintaining US military
hegemony, and about maintaining Zionist apartheid in Palestine.
Unfortunately many people in the anti-war movement
counter-productively support the demonization of Arabs and Muslims
instead of opposing this racism. I see some of the socialist
newspapers constantly attacking the Iraqi and Palestinian resistance
movements instead of supporting these people who are bravely
struggling against imperialism. I see people accusing Sunnis in Iraq
of killing Shi'ites instead of recognizing the truth that the Iraqi
Resistance is against the Americans and that the attacks on Shi'ites
that we see on the imperialist-controlled news are CIA psy-ops
operations. I see some socialist groups having a racist attitude that
because people in Iraq come from a Muslim culture they can't really
form progressive movments. I don't see anyone saying that Christians
in Central and South America can't from real progressive movements.
It's just sheer American racism against Arabs and Muslims that needs
to be addressed even within the anti-war movement.
There are also attacks on Arabs and Muslims in the US and around the
world, a racist witchhunt against "terrorists". Arabs and Muslims
are being arrested, tortured, imprisoned for life.
While racism against people of African decent and against Latin at s
isn't a central feature of the US war in Iraq and against "terror" at
the moment, these racisms could become central, and Africans and
Latin at s certainly are under US attack both here in the USA and in
Latin America, Africa and Haiti. So I support adding opposition to
racism against Blacks and Latin at s to the demand. I would add support
for Native Americans as well.
Lastly on another subject (but of course all topics are
inter-related), I've heard that we are going to hear criticism of the
anti-war movement from District 7 tonight. I propose that in
addition to the anti-racist demand that we add another demand: "End
all military spending. Close all the bases."
- David Rolde
At 2:15 PM -0400 10/8/05, John Harris wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>You have raised some concerns about democracy here that should be addressed.
>In particular you would like to see more "discussion concerning the political
>shape of the protest and movement". In June when ideas were being debated
>about the political shape of the movement when the Committee for a Fall Action
>had a discussion of the Fall Boston action you spoke volumes and no
>one cut you
>off. Once there was support in the broader antiwar movement for a
>fall action, the
>Committee for a Fall Action dissolved. The purpose of our existance
>was achieved.
>In July, you chose not to come to meetings of the October 29th
>Coalition or bring
>your ideas forward. In August there was extensive debate on demands and the
>"political shape of the protest and movement" and you expressed your
>views like
>everyone else. You were not cut off and neither were any of the
>people newer than
>you. In September the discussion focused more on "getting things
>done" and I feel
>this is only natural. You have been given ample opportunately to
>express your views
>on the list serv. You have certainly taken this opportunity more
>than I have. I guarentee
>that I won't complain later that I did not have the opportunity. You
>seem to agree that
>process should not trump politics or action. What we need now is
>Action and process
>should not be allowed to trump this. You will again have the
>opportunity to debate "political
>shape" in the form of a proposal for a demand. And the Coalition has
>the democratic right to
>take Action on whatever is decided. It is unfortunate that we get
>booted out of our meeting
>place at 8:00 sharp. But that is the arrangement we democratically
>decided to make. The
>Coalition decided in July to encourage organizations to put out
>postings and fliers. This has
>been done. You could have made a proposal to the contrary. But I
>think it is a little late now.
>Were we being undemocratic?
>
>In an earlier post you raised something very closely related to what
>you are raising below:
>"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."
>
>In my view, I see you reinventing yourself as a newcomer and
>bursting on to the scene to
>challenge the "big chiefs". The task of geting "new people involved
>and coming back to the
>planning meetings to help us build for the protest" is what many of
>us are doing right now.
>The October 29th Coalition never bothered to elect a coordinator
>("big chief"). Thank heaven
>Chris is coordinating Outreach and Karen was coordinating Permits and Jason is
>coordinating Media and Nick is coordinating the Web Site and maybe
>Brian on finances.
>I am not sure who is coordinating our other activities. To some the
>"big chief" line of
>argumentation in this context may seem offensive and could put
>Machiavelli to shame.
>But for me it has provided some comic relief which I have enjoyed.
>
>In Solidarity,
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: O29-bounces at massglobalaction.org
>[mailto:O29-bounces at massglobalaction.org]On Behalf Of Keith Rosenthal
>Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 11:37 AM
>To: o29 at massglobalaction.org
>Subject: [O29] Monday meeting, open to public, one protest/one flyer
>
>Hey,
>
> A discussion on the demands issue definitely needs to be on the
>agenda. It was a tie vote last week, there has been more time for
>discussion and compromise since, and because of the nature of the
>demand, the tie vote needs to be broken one way or the other because
>of the importance of the demand. We could just allot 15-20 minutes
>for this discussion, take hands, for and against, and then vote. A
>discussion on the different ideas people have for how to politically
>shape the protest is just as (if not more) important than a
>logisitical discussion about the order of the speakers or how we're
>going to get a sound system (which can be worked out in
>sub-committees).
> Anyway, it would be healthy for our coalition to hear out in full
>the different political ideas people have about the protest, and not
>just talk about the various specific and mundane (though not
>unimportant) details. I've personally been frustrated with the
>extent to which our meetings have been marked by the quick cutting
>off of discussion concerning the political shape of the protest and
>movement, in order to "get things done." To me this is
>undemocratic, because then the political shaping of the protest,
>which is the most important part, ends up happening in individual
>discussions and conversations elsewhere. I have heard it said
>that this is done in order to keep the coalition "unified," but I
>actually think it only keeps us divided from hearing out each
>others' ideas.
>
> Finally, I'm actually not sure that we should have 20 different
>flyers for the protest, all created by different member groups, and
>all saying different demands on them. If we were going to do that,
>then what's the point of even voting on demands? We are voting on
>these demands because we, as a majority, feel that they are crucial
>demands to get out there into the public eye, and, by voting, or not
>voting, we feel that the whole group ought to be democratically
>accountable to carry out that decision, with one flyer, which we
>will all be using.
>
> Oh, and one last thing, if there is anyone out there in listserve
>land that has been following this debate, I strongly encourage you
>to feel more than welcome to attend the organizing meeting this
>coming Monday at 6pm at the Mass Global Action Office at 33 Harrison
>Street, 4th floor, in Chinatown (two blocks from the Chinatown T
>stop on the Orange Line). Especially if you understand the
>importance of getting this demand against racism on the flyer and
>central to our movement, please come to the meeting Monday and let
>your voice be heard. Thank you.
>
>
>Solidarity,
>Keith Rosenthal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>DAVID KEIL <dmkeil at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>This is to pass on ideas I've heard about procedure Monday (6pm, MGA).
>Some reports we need to hear and discuss are: program; permits and
>logistics; outreach (including leafleting, endorsements, and regional
>outreach); and finances. We usually start with minutes from the
>previous meeting, choice of note taker for current meeting, and choice
>of facilitator for next meeting, plus intros. I've heard that some
>committees need to meet, so if people agree, then between 7:00 and
>7:30 we could break the general meeting up into committees.
>
>The last item on the general agenda would be demands, to discuss and
>vote on the following:
>- Keith's motion (10/7) to add "Stop the Racist Attacks on the Black,
>Latin@, Arab & Muslim Communities" to the list of central demands or
>slogans;
>- A possible motion by Amee (10/8) to add "Militarism reinforces
>racism, sexism, & homophobia" to the central slogans;
>- Possible other slogans, such as "Stop the Racist Rhetoric" (R.
>Miller 10/8) or ones based on Gustavo's post (10/8).
>
>It seems that most activists want most of the general meeting to be
>about important details of preparing the action, but there seems to be
>a consensus also to hear proposals on demands. Everyone wants an
>atmosphere of respect, collaboration, and friendship, even if we cast
>divided votes and sometimes feel angry with each other. One way
>suggested to ensure this atmosphere in the demands discussion is to
>hear very briefly how everyone feels; then after a brief silence, to
>take motions, take brief discussion, and vote.
>
>Informal discussion tonight at Assembling Peace in JP, and discussions
>Sunday and Monday, will be an important way to prepare for the
>too-short formal discussion Monday night.
>
>David
>
>_______________________________________________
>O29 mailing list
>O29 at massglobalaction.org
>http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org
>
>
><http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/>Yahoo!
>Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>O29 mailing list
>O29 at massglobalaction.org
>http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://massglobalaction.org/pipermail/o29_massglobalaction.org/attachments/20051010/5fe337aa/attachment.html>
More information about the O29
mailing list