From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
4,000 at Berkeley Peace Vigil
4,000 attend Berkeley Peace Vigil
4,000 Students Attend Vigil At Berkeley
Berkeley, California, 9/11/01 -
About 4,000 Berkeley students attended a "free speech candlelight vigil for
peace" in the wake of the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. The vigil
began by one student singing "Imagine," the anti-war theme by John Lennon and
then over 50 students and community members spoke for 2 minutes at an open
mic. Some students talked about people they knew who died in the attacks and
a few supported President Bush's call to war but the vast majority spoke
against the U.S. responding with violence and for the defence of Arab
Americans and Muslims civil rights. After one student called the attacks a
"new pearl harbor" and urged the crowd to prepare for war only about 10% of
the crowd applauded. The next speaker said, "remember how Pearly Harbor
ended? With the incineration of 100,000 men, women and children in Nagisaki
and Hiroshima." The vast majority of the crowd cheered. A young woman from
Students for Justice in Palestine called for respect for all human rights and
said that Muslim women on campus had been harassed earlier in the day for
wearing head scarves. She condemned the attacks in New York and D.C. and
asked that "no student should be targeted because they are Arab, or Muslim,
or Middle Eastern" and the vast majority of the crowd cheered. The vigil was
organized after one student put out large blank sheets of paper in Sproul
Plaza and asked people to write down what they were feeling about the
tragedy. Hundreds of students gathered all day long to express their
feelings, mourn silently and debate the causes of the attacks and what the
U.S. response should be.
The vigil was covered by the local NBC TV station as an anti-war event
and they showed a leaflet that said, "Don't Turn Tragedy Into War." The
turn-out proves that not everyone is ready to support Bush's calls to war and
the growing racist backlash against Arab and Muslim people. However, it will
not be easy going. After the news report ended, the local TV anchor
editorialized, "Today's attacks inspired patriotism in most Americans,
nevermind those students at Berkeley."
Todd Chretien
report for Socialist Worker newspaper
Berkeley, California, 9/11/01 -
About 4,000 Berkeley students attended a "free speech candlelight vigil for
peace" in the wake of the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. The vigil
began by one student singing "Imagine," the anti-war theme by John Lennon and
then over 50 students and community members spoke for 2 minutes at an open
mic. Some students talked about people they knew who died in the attacks and
a few supported President Bush's call to war but the vast majority spoke
against the U.S. responding with violence and for the defence of Arab
Americans and Muslims civil rights. After one student called the attacks a
"new pearl harbor" and urged the crowd to prepare for war only about 10% of
the crowd applauded. The next speaker said, "remember how Pearly Harbor
ended? With the incineration of 100,000 men, women and children in Nagisaki
and Hiroshima." The vast majority of the crowd cheered. A young woman from
Students for Justice in Palestine called for respect for all human rights and
said that Muslim women on campus had been harassed earlier in the day for
wearing head scarves. She condemned the attacks in New York and D.C. and
asked that "no student should be targeted because they are Arab, or Muslim,
or Middle Eastern" and the vast majority of the crowd cheered. The vigil was
organized after one student put out large blank sheets of paper in Sproul
Plaza and asked people to write down what they were feeling about the
tragedy. Hundreds of students gathered all day long to express their
feelings, mourn silently and debate the causes of the attacks and what the
U.S. response should be.
The vigil was covered by the local NBC TV station as an anti-war event
and they showed a leaflet that said, "Don't Turn Tragedy Into War." The
turn-out proves that not everyone is ready to support Bush's calls to war and
the growing racist backlash against Arab and Muslim people. However, it will
not be easy going. After the news report ended, the local TV anchor
editorialized, "Today's attacks inspired patriotism in most Americans,
nevermind those students at Berkeley."
Todd Chretien
report for Socialist Worker newspaper
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Keep your eyes open - Chuck McNally
UCB Stop the War Coalition
PATRIOTISM, n. 1) The inability to distinguish between the government and one's "country"; 2) A highly praiseworthy virtue characterized by the desire to dominate and kill;
3) A feeling of exultation experienced when contemplating heaps of charred "enemy" corpses; 4) The first, last, and perennial refuge of scoundrels.
PATRIOT, n. A dangerous tool of the powers that be. A herd member who compensates for lack of self-respect by indentifying with an abstraction. An enemy of individual freedom. A fancier of the rich, satisfying flavor of boot leather.
-- from The American Heretic's Dictionary
edited by Chaz Bufe (See Sharp Press)
The Vigil was advertised as one for the victims, and the introductory speaker outlined it as such. Many people came up and talked about the WTC and what they felt was the real cause of the tragedies: encrouchment upon foreign sovereignty by global organizations and corporate initiatives. Many also spoke about the other victims: those in Sudan and other regions that have suffered from US intervention and global encrouchment. Many of those who spoke for peace were speaking also of the victims to come if war were to break out.
The cheers and jeers from the audience were genuine and not orchestrated. Most of the peace statements were met with applause.
Only toward the end, were some of the pro-war sentiments expressed. Some of these were met with boos.
Everyone who wanted to speak (within the alloted time) was allowed to speak. Most people, even if they spoke on politics, did mention the victims.
I have the tape if anyone needs it.
-Hocho
The rest of you yahoos can bitch and moan all day, you day is past and ours is coming. Your president couldn't even win a popular vote.
Just remember, the last time we had a civil war, WE WON.
Your "rustics" have, with a degree of restraint and respect, created a nation where people like YOU are allowed to live in peace and prosperity with all the rights provided to every citizen in this imperfect union of ours.
Just remember, the Brits called the colonial patriots "rustics", too. Take away their freedom to do what you currently enjoy, and you'll have a few farmers from the Heartland start taking potshots at you, justly, in the name of liberty.
If history is any indication, that would be a good thing.
And regarding freedoms: I have been arrested several times in my life at legal, non-violent demonstrations seeking a redress of grievances from my government. I was hospitalized for arguing that my tuition shouldn't double at a public university in New York City. Several policeman beat me for trying to DISPERSE a sit-in on Lexington Avenue.
It's funny to go straight from a class on the philosophical roots of democratic theory to getting your ass beat by the police. It makes you think.
But that's exactly the kind of thing a "rustic" like you seems to be missing - an understanding of reality.
And by the way, I took that death threat with a grain of salt. Just check out the demographics. You are losing.
How much freedom does a person have if s/he must sell their labor to survive, work 40-60 hours a week, and are two or three pay-checks from homelessness? I've been involved in organizing (and strikes -- one a five day wildcat that got us a big wage hike and much better conditions) and I can't say how many times I've heard workers say they don't have the freedom to strike. Think of that. On the one hand we are told that we are free; on the other hand millions and millions of workers don't feel they are free to take a few days off work. There you see the chasm between formal and actual freedom.
So-called libertarians of Kantor's ilk seek a world completely dominated by the laws of capitalist value. They wish to see the entire landscape conform to these laws, as if these laws haven't already permeated enough of life. According to the propertarian creed that Kantor holds dear -- and, laughably, views as a doctrine of freedom -- a redwood forest must justify itself in the marketplace. If some conglomerate corporation leverages a deal to take control of it, then, according to Kantor, it is an exercise in freedom for that conglomerate corporation to clear-cut that forest if it so chooses. Likewise, if that same conglomerate corporation controls a tin mine in, oh say, Brazil, according to this small-spirited doctrine, it can scar the land, pay wages as low "as the market will bare" (is $2/day enough?), and when the wage-slaves strike, call in the forces of the state to clear a path for a new workforce.
So, you see, as anti-capitalists we can engage in empirical debates with Kantor and other self-styled liberatarians, but the differences are irreconcilible. It's a matter of what type of world one wishes to live in -- a world that is social and alive and people encounter one another as full human beings, where freedom is grounded in material conditions and then flows upward and outward, where social existence isn't geared around buying and selling, where work is for the satisfaction of need and human fullfillment, and ecological considerations are paramount, OR we can settle for Kantor's world of mediocrity and strip malls, and traffic jams, ecological collapse, seemingly endless work, degraded market communities, aliention, TV with 5,000 channels of junk, imperialistic war, and a cretinizing mass culture that sells the idea that the amemic individualism of capitalism is as good as it gets.
To Kantor, I say, finally: The class war is real and not mythologized. You and I are on opposite sides of the barricades. Cheers.
I'm not opposed to rightwingers participating in demonstrations of opposition to this war or any other. I'm not holding my breath however, and I think that you'll find that most "rightists" opposed to this war are dubious -- in some cases pretty explicitly racist or nativist -- or just iconoclasts with no real base to speak of. In other words, as such, rightwingers against the war, on the whole, are toxic or just irrelevant. Anyone who's serious about examining the roots of US foreign policy and militarism will soon disabuse themselves of any and all illusions in capitalism. There's no harm in making contact with antiwar.com, as you've done, but it's important that we not fool ourselves by pandering to "libertarian" notions, nor think that any movement of any strength will arise from these folks, or their principles.
This raises a deeper issue, which is that there is no movement on the horizon that's about to stop US plans in Afghanistan. Nor should we be so sure, as you seem to be, that the US will be locked into an intractable ordeal there. Many will die of bombs and hunger to be sure, but radicals should be analyzing the situation at hand -- meaning the total situation of the world capitalism and it's effects inside and outside the US -- so we can be stronger in the future to fight capitalist war and capitalist peace. This war can not be treated as discrete, in other words.
I tend to think that drawing apocolyptic scenarios doesn't work because it paralyzes people. I mentioned the fact there is no movement on the horizon anywhere near strong enough to halt US plans in Afghanistan. I'm not into giving quarter to injustice, but this fact needs to be acknowledged -- in the name of strengthening for what lies ahead. My sense is that there are reservations about what's going on under the surface, but these latent misgivings aren't going to develop into anything substantial for a while. Part of the disillusionment is tied up in -- and should be connected to -- the fact that conditions are getting tougher for working class and poor people in the US. The speculative boom of the 95-00 is over and for many wage-workers the only overhang is enormous rents. Unemployment is going up dramatically. The safety-net has been torn up. Bosses can demand more of those still employed -- hiked health premiums and the like. We're told to go get a t-shirt emblazoned with a flag to help the economy while corporations are getting big bail-outs. To not draw connections between the class war at home (and abroad) and this latest US slaughter is to weaken ourselves for both fights. To treat the Afghan war as discrete, in other words, is wrong factually and strategically. "Libertarians" will be vehemently opposed to widening the scope of the fight in this manner, and that's why I believe they are ultimately pretty irrelevant.
Of course, if the Cato Institute wants to publicize against the Patriot Act, that's better than nothing. But as Christian Parenti has pointed out, the US was, prior to 9/11, pretty much of a police state already -- ON PAPER. But in actuality a lot of the written law wasn't put into effect because there were fears of opposition if, for instance, the US government was to detain and deport immigrant union leaders without even revealing the charges brought against them, as is allowed under Clinton's anti-terror bill. Conversely, the state will go outside any written law when it feels a need to do so -- as always, bearing in mind the balance of forces and concomitant benefits and losses. The point being that it's our counter-power that's pivotal, and not what's written -- or not written -- on a piece of paper. I'm not dismissing the political significance of Ashcroft and Bush getting through more draconian laws, but we shouldn't make a fetish of what the state legally "can" or "can not" do. "Libertarians" aren't apt to see power as existing outside of a few select loci, and thus tailor their plans accordingly. So, to repeat, I'm all for moneytarians taking a stand against the war, but I'm not expecting much in terms of quantity or quality.
What is needed for a real transformation? anti-war, anti-discrimination, anti-enslavement, anti-fascist, anti-globalization, and anti-capitalism needs to become pro-peace, pro-diversity, pro-labor, pro-choice, and supportive of local traditions and people. We need everyone in this massive struggle.
We need the disenfranchised, the 'middle', workers and unions; women, children, and men of all walks of life and beliefs. In the course of our struggle it will of course be necessary to espouse our beliefs and 'watch our backs'. We will disagree with eachother a times, and this is both natural and healthy.
Let's remember, however, that this is a crisis. We need cooperation more than we need in-fighting. We need a common set of goals which resonates with as many people as possible without compromising the integrity of the movement.
Remember that even as you speak of 'Libertarians' or 'Democrats' or even 'Republicans' or 'Greens, that you are speaking of large groups of people with diverse positions on a huge range of issues. We can't all agree on everything, but those of us interested in working toward human equality and peace need to move toward unity and solidarity or our selected 'president' and his cabal of warmongers will declare victory while we are busy mudslinging and bickering amongst ourselves.
let's work toward mutual understanding and individual integrity.
peace
What is needed for a real transformation? anti-war, anti-discrimination, anti-enslavement, anti-hate, anti-globalization, and anti-capitalism needs to become pro-peace, pro-diversity, pro-labor, pro-choice, and supportive of local traditions and people. We need everyone in this massive struggle.
We need the disenfranchised, the 'middle', workers and unions; women, children, and men of all walks of life and beliefs. In the course of our struggle it will of course be necessary to espouse our beliefs and 'watch our backs'. We will disagree with eachother a times, and this is both natural and healthy.
Let's remember, however, that this is a crisis. We need cooperation more than we need in-fighting. We need a common set of goals which resonates with as many people as possible without compromising the integrity of the movement. Many people have been lulled asleep and we need to rouse them.
Remember that even as you speak of 'Libertarians' or 'Democrats' or even 'Republicans' or 'Greens, that you are speaking of large groups of people with diverse positions on a huge range of issues. We can't all agree on everything, but those of us interested in working toward human equality and peace need to move toward unity and solidarity or the selected 'president' and his cabal of warmongers will declare victory while we are busy mudslinging and bickering amongst ourselves.
let's work toward a broader body of support. let's work toward mutual understanding and individual integrity.
peace