Fresh from the J18 ANSWER mass mobilizations in D.C. and San Francisco, is everyone ready to do it again for United for Peace and Justice's February 15 rallies in New York City and San Francisco?
originally posted by zagg
Posted by Adam on January 24, 2003 12:43 PM|Permalink
Comments
*stepping quietly around easily aroused sensibilities...*
folks, I ask the following question with sincerity and hope for dialogue...
what do you make of the recent nytimes article that states that there is dissension among ANSWER and some of the other groups participating in the marches on Washington and San Francisco? the article mentions that some people are uncomfortable with ANSWER's decisions to use that march for peace as a soap box for the Mumia issue and other things.
What does that mean for ANSWER, and what will it mean for United for Peace?
I think that NY Times article overstates the case a bit, but there clearly is some division in the antiwar movement. That's part of the reason United For Peace and Justice was formed in the first place. At its core are more liberal groups.
But for now, there seems to be a peace. United For Peace has endorsed ANSWER organized rallies and ANSWER has endorsed Feb. 15 and appears to be mobilizing for it.
As for papers -- ANSWER itself is purely an anti-war group. But it is connected with the International Actoin Center, which is in turn connected with the Workers World Party. They give out their papers for free at the rallies.
Interesting answer. What I'm really trying to get at, I think, is not confirmation that there is a bit of a split, because that's obvious.
To be more clear, what does it mean for the actions those groups have taken and will take?
If, for instance, there was some uncomfortable vibe action among those who thought that ANSWER was pushing other causes into what was mainly a call to raising a voice for peace, then how does United For Peace counteract that feeling without seeming like it is launching a politicized move against its companion voices for change?
the anti-cold-war/anti-apartheid demos i was involved in, and probably the anti-vietnam-war demos a generation before that, featured pretty much the same apparent splintering and jockeying for position. when the voiceless decide to speak up, some of them are going to bring their own agendas to the table.
what you have to understand is this is nothing new. the right, particularly the far-right, have always had much less infighting and tighter organizational structures because they have rallied around a rigid ideological platform, are usually mobilized by charismatic leaders such as jerry falwell or david duke rather than nebulous affinity groups, and conformity of opinion is seen among folks of that bent as a virtue, not a vice.
meanwhile, the driving force behind anti-war movements past and present has been the liberality-radicalism spectrum, personified in the free-thinkers, wobblies, yippies, hippies, punks, ravers, unionists, feminists, pan-sexualists, representatives of various "minority" groups, etc. when the agenda is consensus-building among diverse people rather than ideological lock-step, you're almost guaranteed to have in-fighting, anarchy, chaos, "unprofessionalism", etc. that's how malcolm x's nation of islam had it over the traditional left, at least in one sense: they had a strict (in their case, religious) ideology that told them exactly how to behave, and a charismatic top-down leadership structure, so their demonstrations became stunningly choreographed media events. while i think x was a great man, this structure proved to be his downfall, for once you're at the top of that kind of structure there's no where else to go but down [conspiracy theories left aside for the moment].
but in the greater scheme of things it's our diversity that makes us strong, because in the end diversity is the true face of america, and while it might change things faster in the short run if we had charismatic leaders and a monolithic platform, our movement will unfailingly represent a majority of americans who simply do not believe that in order to remain free we must set ourselves up as an empire.
ANSWER is going to continue to be ANSWER. I don't think there's really much that can be done about that. The whole way they are set up is very top-down. So while the organization may have a broader base, it's not really democratic in the way the run things.
At the same time, they are damned good at putting large demos together. And I think it's important that every antiwar demo be large, no matter who calls it.
Unfortunately, my exposure to UFPJ so far has been that the main guiding principle is that they "aren't ANSWER." So they want the Feb. 15 to "look different" than the ANSWER demos. What that means -- I'm not sure. The most concrete thing I've heard is that they don't want a rally with 30+ speakers, many of whom are not connecting back to the war. They want a shorter program.
What seems most democratic -- but is very far from happening -- would be to have a true sort of coaliton emerge with all parties having an equal voice in shaping what these demonstrations become.
Comments
*stepping quietly around easily aroused sensibilities...*
folks, I ask the following question with sincerity and hope for dialogue...
what do you make of the recent nytimes article that states that there is dissension among ANSWER and some of the other groups participating in the marches on Washington and San Francisco? the article mentions that some people are uncomfortable with ANSWER's decisions to use that march for peace as a soap box for the Mumia issue and other things.
What does that mean for ANSWER, and what will it mean for United for Peace?
Thank you.
Posted by: badonkadonk with flowers and candy | January 24, 2003 12:59 PM
am i right in assuming that ANSWER are among the people who always want to sell you a newspaper?
Posted by: g-lo | January 24, 2003 1:19 PM
I think that NY Times article overstates the case a bit, but there clearly is some division in the antiwar movement. That's part of the reason United For Peace and Justice was formed in the first place. At its core are more liberal groups.
But for now, there seems to be a peace. United For Peace has endorsed ANSWER organized rallies and ANSWER has endorsed Feb. 15 and appears to be mobilizing for it.
As for papers -- ANSWER itself is purely an anti-war group. But it is connected with the International Actoin Center, which is in turn connected with the Workers World Party. They give out their papers for free at the rallies.
Posted by: zagg | January 24, 2003 1:35 PM
Here's the NY Times article for those who want to check it out.
Posted by: zagg | January 24, 2003 1:36 PM
Zagg,
Interesting answer. What I'm really trying to get at, I think, is not confirmation that there is a bit of a split, because that's obvious.
To be more clear, what does it mean for the actions those groups have taken and will take?
If, for instance, there was some uncomfortable vibe action among those who thought that ANSWER was pushing other causes into what was mainly a call to raising a voice for peace, then how does United For Peace counteract that feeling without seeming like it is launching a politicized move against its companion voices for change?
It seems like a tricky situation right now.
Posted by: badonkadonk with flowers and candy | January 24, 2003 2:36 PM
the anti-cold-war/anti-apartheid demos i was involved in, and probably the anti-vietnam-war demos a generation before that, featured pretty much the same apparent splintering and jockeying for position. when the voiceless decide to speak up, some of them are going to bring their own agendas to the table.
what you have to understand is this is nothing new. the right, particularly the far-right, have always had much less infighting and tighter organizational structures because they have rallied around a rigid ideological platform, are usually mobilized by charismatic leaders such as jerry falwell or david duke rather than nebulous affinity groups, and conformity of opinion is seen among folks of that bent as a virtue, not a vice.
meanwhile, the driving force behind anti-war movements past and present has been the liberality-radicalism spectrum, personified in the free-thinkers, wobblies, yippies, hippies, punks, ravers, unionists, feminists, pan-sexualists, representatives of various "minority" groups, etc. when the agenda is consensus-building among diverse people rather than ideological lock-step, you're almost guaranteed to have in-fighting, anarchy, chaos, "unprofessionalism", etc. that's how malcolm x's nation of islam had it over the traditional left, at least in one sense: they had a strict (in their case, religious) ideology that told them exactly how to behave, and a charismatic top-down leadership structure, so their demonstrations became stunningly choreographed media events. while i think x was a great man, this structure proved to be his downfall, for once you're at the top of that kind of structure there's no where else to go but down [conspiracy theories left aside for the moment].
but in the greater scheme of things it's our diversity that makes us strong, because in the end diversity is the true face of america, and while it might change things faster in the short run if we had charismatic leaders and a monolithic platform, our movement will unfailingly represent a majority of americans who simply do not believe that in order to remain free we must set ourselves up as an empire.
Posted by: r@d@r | January 24, 2003 2:46 PM
better to do as you do than do what the romans do, when in rome.
truth.
Posted by: badonkadonk with flowers and candy | January 24, 2003 3:42 PM
ANSWER is going to continue to be ANSWER. I don't think there's really much that can be done about that. The whole way they are set up is very top-down. So while the organization may have a broader base, it's not really democratic in the way the run things.
At the same time, they are damned good at putting large demos together. And I think it's important that every antiwar demo be large, no matter who calls it.
Unfortunately, my exposure to UFPJ so far has been that the main guiding principle is that they "aren't ANSWER." So they want the Feb. 15 to "look different" than the ANSWER demos. What that means -- I'm not sure. The most concrete thing I've heard is that they don't want a rally with 30+ speakers, many of whom are not connecting back to the war. They want a shorter program.
What seems most democratic -- but is very far from happening -- would be to have a true sort of coaliton emerge with all parties having an equal voice in shaping what these demonstrations become.
Posted by: zagg | January 24, 2003 4:10 PM
By the way, everything r@d@r said, I agree with.
Posted by: zagg | January 24, 2003 4:12 PM
theorems and numerical projections show the U.S. to be the victor against any Middle Eastern nemesis
Posted by: badonkadonk with flowers and candy | January 25, 2003 11:07 AM
Yes, thank you r@d@r.
Posted by: B o y W o n d e r | January 27, 2003 3:09 PM