<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hear hear! The racist scapegoating of Arabs and Muslims was exactly
what the 9-11 attacks were designed to accomplish. Not having been at
the meeting I don't know, but I'm assuming 9-11 truth is not going to
be a demand? In any case, people who are afraid of being "too radical"
should quit the anti-war movement and go work for pro-war Hillary as
she prepares to run for Prez. Enough of this nonsense about
"moderation" and not alienating certain types of people. The truth is
the truth, not some radical pipedream.<br>
<br>
On 10/5/2005 3:36 PM, Keith Rosenthal wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20051005193638.34260.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div>Hey All,</div>
<div> </div>
<div> I just wanted to throw a couple of thoughts out there
regarding the vote and discussion at Monday's O29 meeting concerning
demands for this protest -- specifically the demand: "Stop the racist
scapegoating of Arabs and Muslims" also, since the political
discussion around the demand was short and choppy in the meeting, i
wanted to respond to several things here.</div>
<div> I think it was a mistake that this demand was voted down in a
tie vote (9-9), and some of the justifications presented for why it
should be voted down have the potential to set a bad precedent for our
movement. it was stated that we "don't want a radical protest, which
will only draw 1,000 people," "that we have to reach out to middle
America," and that we should learn the lesson of the Vietnam antiwar
movement which, "got the hard-hats to stop beating up the students, but
instead join the students." i think this perspective is erroneous and
somewhat mythical. </div>
<div> First of all, i don't think we should have a laundry list of
demands on the flyer, nor do i think we should talk about everything
under the sun on the flyer. but i don't think a demand around arabs
and muslims is "beyond the pale," too radical, or will bring less
people out to the march. in fact, i think it can draw in more people
pissed about the Patriot Act, Guantanamo mistreatment, and, of course,
will draw in Arabs and Muslims, who just recently have been making
pleas to Romney to stop the plan to wiretap local Mosques! where is
the antiwar movement on this question of the supposedly imminent and
overwhelming threat that "Muslim and Arab extremists" pose to "our
freedoms"? the demand around Palestine at the September 24th protest
certainly did not make that historic march any smaller, so why would a
demand to stop anti-Arab racist scapegoating make our march any smaller?</div>
<div> Second, we ought to be less afraid right now of being "too
radical." the single-most important figure in revitalizing mass
antiwar activity recently has been none other than that "raving
radical" Cindy Sheehan, who supports Palestine, the Iraq resistance to
occupation, refuses to vote for pro-war Democrats, and calls the
current war "imperialist." she is resonating with people because the
reality is that right now, in the aftermath of the sinking occupation
of Iraq and the Hurricane Katrina disaster, most regular people are
growing increasingly fed up with this war and with everything having to
do with the current government. right now, people are increasingly fed
up with even the Democratic Party for not taking a firm enough stand
against Bush and the war because of their concern to not alienate
"swing-voters in middle America." </div>
<div> Finally, who is this mythical "middle America," and how do we
win them? the reality is that right now, a majority of people are
against the war and against Bush. according to polls, 1 out of 3
people consider themselves <strong><em>part</em></strong> of the
antiwar movement -- that's 100 million people nationwide. in boston,
that's roughly 200,000 people. once we get these people organized, it
will be easy from there to win the other antiwar 1/3 to our side.
also, who are we trying to win to this movement? soccer moms (like
cindy sheehan)? sure! arabs, muslims, blacks, gays, women, students,
latinos, workers, etc., (i.e., the majority of people)? we must! </div>
<div> And if i may ask, which hard-hats are beating up antiwar
students today? it's my understanding that the AFL-CIO is against the
war in Iraq (this includes organized construction workers, i believe).
remember, <em>we are the majority</em>! soldiers and military
families are increasingly on our side. now is not the
time for conservative, cautious moderation, but rather for bold,
confident, and aggressive steps forward. </div>
<div> During the vietnam war, these so-called "hard hats" (do you
mean workers, soldiers, what?), were not won over to the side of the
"students" because the "students" moderated their message. rather,
they were won over to the antiwar movement because they simply grew
more and more disgusted with the war and the government and felt they
simply had to do something about it. in other words, people were going
through a process where they were beginning to think much more
critically about the government, if for no other reason than because of
the increasing reality of what the government was doing to the
Vietnamese people and to the US soldiers. this is precisely what is
happening right now. the way we are going to win these people is not
by moderating our message, but by taking every opportunity to expose
every lie, smokescreen, and brutality that this government is carrying
out in the name of this war . . . and in all of our names. in so
doing, we will give expression to growing millions of people disgusted
by the government and simply waiting for someone to confidently
address the government's barbarity, blow-for-blow (e.g., Cindy
Sheehan). </div>
<div> </div>
<div> In conclusion, i warn against the broader framework,
justification, and implications used to defeat the demand on anti-arab
racism at monday's meeting. it sounds dangerously similar to the logic
employed by Kerry supporters in the last election that we have to
moderate our message to appeal to "swing-voters in middle-America" in
order to win. not only did that strategy, in fact, lead to a defeat
for our side, but it also taught movement activists how to hold their
tongues instead of raising their voices. as the 2006 congressional
elections begin to be talked about, we would do well to remember this
lesson, and refuse this time around to repeat our mistakes. the way to
grow is to confidently fight for our principles and to win more people
to them -- in tandem with their own developing criticisms of the war
and the government -- and not by "moderating ourselves," "politically
disciplining ourselves," or "holding our noses." </div>
<div> Again, this is not to say that we should have a laundry-list
of every possible demand on the flyer. but this is to say that we have
little to lose and much to gain by adding clearly relevant demands and
letting our movement take an increasingly critical posture towards the
government's various policies and ideological buttresses. and we ought
to be wary of making arguments that would set a precedent for our
movement to balk and moderate itself in order to appeal to some
mythical "middle-America" at the expense of standing up for our beliefs
and for those who are most oppressed and victimized by this war and
this government. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Solidarity,</div>
<div>Keith Rosenthal</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<p> </p>
<hr size="1">Yahoo! for Good<br>
<a href="http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/">Click here to
donate</a> to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
O29 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:O29@massglobalaction.org">O29@massglobalaction.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org">http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>