<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Hi all,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Keith
takes a quote from one person in the debate and fails to address the central
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>issue
that led to the decision to reject his proposal. Why does this demand "trump
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>all
the others" that were raised many weeks ago? The Coalition decided to
include </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>representatives of the various struggles on the platform of the
rally and also to adopt </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>a
"Statement of the Coalition"</FONT> <FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>at the top of the Web site: Oct29.org. I agree with David
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>as to
the reason for the central focus adopted for the Action on October 29th:
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>"The central discussions and debates unfolding today in
U.S. politics surround the war in Iraq <BR>and the unfolding catastrophe on the
Gulf Coast. The massive resources being used to subjugate <BR>Iraqis stand in
stark contrast to the massive challenges faced by working people on the Gulf
Coast <BR>in fullfilling their dire needs. The demands of the October 29th
action flow from the deepening polarization </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>developing as this debate unfolds. The demand to boot
out military recruiters also flows from the </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>widespread activity and broad debate that has been
generated throughout the country. These demands
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>are readily understandable to all who have even an
ounce of humanity. They command the need for </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>widespread action and unity and open the door to
developing an understanding of the overall assault
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>on our lives and rights as reflected in the broader
battles and issues that will be raised and represented
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625584904-06102005><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>at the action." </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=625584904-06102005>I also take issue with part of Keith's analysis of the
Democrats: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>"right now, people are
increasingly fed up with even the Democratic Party for not taking a firm enough
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>stand against Bush and the war
because of their concern to not alienate "swing-voters in middle
America." </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=625584904-06102005>This implies that the Democrats are on our side but are
held back by "<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>their concern to
not alienate "swing-voters </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=625584904-06102005><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>in
middle America." This in my view is false. The Democrats in Washington have
the same agenda as Bush. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=625584904-06102005><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>They
only differ on how to advance a common agenda.
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=625584904-06102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=625584904-06102005><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000
size=3>Unfortunately the "Ashcroft Raids" were carried out
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>with
little opposition from either of the national antiwar
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>coalitions. It was not a
question of another demand but more of a question of organizing a national
campaign. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>I proposed at the time that
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>"Stop the
Ashcroft Raids!" take on a more central focus of the work of the antiwar
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>movement because at the time it
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>was a central
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>feature of the
drive toward war. This was during the period </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>when the big majority of
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>jailings and
deportations of Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians took place. I certainly
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>didn't resort to
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT><FONT><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>the kind of
baiting that is taking place now. We should all live and learn and try to move
forward. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=625584904-06102005></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>This debate
would have been more useful 2 months ago. It would be good to continue it after
October 29th. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625584904-06102005>In
solidarity,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=625584904-06102005>John</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=625584904-06102005> </SPAN>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
O29-bounces@massglobalaction.org [mailto:O29-bounces@massglobalaction.org]<B>On
Behalf Of </B>Keith Rosenthal<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 05, 2005 3:37
PM<BR><B>To:</B> o29@massglobalaction.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [O29] Arabs and
Muslims, "Middle America, " and building our
movement<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<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>
<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.
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>