Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Queer Contingent / O26
A coalition of queer anti-war and radical groups joined in on the protest of an up and coming war wanted only by fools and bloodthirsty oilmen. Among the groups represented were LAGAI-Queer Insurrection, the Harvey Milk Club, and the Lavender Greens.
We're Here,
We're Queer,
We're not invading Iraq!
We're Queer,
We're not invading Iraq!
For more information:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/outagainstth...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Good thing they're protesting in the United States, otherwise they'd be imprisoned (in Lebanon and Syria), deported, or even executed (in Saudi Arabia). Since a Palestinian state would most likely have a judicial system similar to that of Lebanon or Syria, it's nice to see these well meaning, but stupid, queers protest in support of intolerance. Maybe they could go to Israel, where discrimination on the basis of sexual preference is prohibited.
http://www.ilga.org/Information/legal_survey/middle%20east/world_legal_survey__middle_east.htm
http://www.ilga.org/Information/legal_survey/middle%20east/world_legal_survey__middle_east.htm
Good thing they're protesting in the United States, otherwise they'd be imprisoned (in Lebanon and Syria), deported, or even executed (in Saudi Arabia). Since a Palestinian state would most likely have a judicial system similar to that of Lebanon or Syria, it's nice to see these well meaning, but stupid, queers protest in support of intolerance. Maybe they could go to Israel, where discrimination on the basis of sexual preference is prohibited.
http://www.ilga.org/Information/legal_survey/middle%20east/world_legal_survey__middle_east.htm
http://www.ilga.org/Information/legal_survey/middle%20east/world_legal_survey__middle_east.htm
Not all Muslims are fundamentalists or queer hating....
http://www.al-fatiha.net/
Not all Arabs and/or Muslims are religious fundamentalists or follow shariah law.
But boy does it build up your strawman to lump everyone in the same category!!!
By the way, I was one of those queers present and also one of the queers who marched in the same contingent during the 20 thousand strong demonstration to end queer-friendly Israel's brutal occupation of Palestine. Not once were we made to feel unwelcome nor did we hear any insults from the thousands of Arab men, women, and children present.
Your argument is tired and overstated. In your bigoted world, all arabs and muslims are absolutely bloodthirsty monsters when in fact it is thier oppressors, the United States and Israel, who carry out the majority of the brutal attrocities against the Palestinian people....10 PERCENT OF WHOM ARE QUEER!
You do not speak from experience. I do. You are absolutely wrong and if you really cared you would be opposed to this futile war. We, as an oppressed community, know that only by the liberation of the Palestinians and all Arab people from the brutal regimes that control them will there be democracy, freedom, and liberation for our straight and queer sisters and brothers in the region. When you have freedom and democracy, oppression -religious or state influenced - withers away.
As an oppressed community, we KNOW, an injury to one IS an injury to all!
http://www.al-fatiha.net/
Not all Arabs and/or Muslims are religious fundamentalists or follow shariah law.
But boy does it build up your strawman to lump everyone in the same category!!!
By the way, I was one of those queers present and also one of the queers who marched in the same contingent during the 20 thousand strong demonstration to end queer-friendly Israel's brutal occupation of Palestine. Not once were we made to feel unwelcome nor did we hear any insults from the thousands of Arab men, women, and children present.
Your argument is tired and overstated. In your bigoted world, all arabs and muslims are absolutely bloodthirsty monsters when in fact it is thier oppressors, the United States and Israel, who carry out the majority of the brutal attrocities against the Palestinian people....10 PERCENT OF WHOM ARE QUEER!
You do not speak from experience. I do. You are absolutely wrong and if you really cared you would be opposed to this futile war. We, as an oppressed community, know that only by the liberation of the Palestinians and all Arab people from the brutal regimes that control them will there be democracy, freedom, and liberation for our straight and queer sisters and brothers in the region. When you have freedom and democracy, oppression -religious or state influenced - withers away.
As an oppressed community, we KNOW, an injury to one IS an injury to all!
I never mentioned "fundamentalism", or anything of that ilk. But an inability to read sure fits well with my description of the people in the protest as "stupid".
The ridiculous comment posted by so-called “Real Anarchist” is obviously fake. You see, anarchists oppose all state violence and oppression. We do not defend a war on Iraq because of the oppression of queers in Palestine or Lebanon. Aside from being an obviously geographically irrelevant argument, since Iraq is not Palestine or Lebanon, it is not consistent with any real anarchist point of view. Real anarchists stand with oppressed people everywhere. This means we do our best to defend the people of the world from the imperialism of our own country (in my case this means fighting the American war machine which currently seeks to slaughter the Iraqi people further). Anarchists who are from non-imperialist (though still authoritarian) countries, like Iraq, struggle there to build the resistance that can topple the authoritarian regimes of men like Saddam Hussein – from below. We do not advocate the overthrow of a tyrant by the foreign military intervention of an imperialist power like the US! That only replaces one tyrant with another! We advocate the overthrow of tyranny where we are, along with building solidarity with people under attack and movements in struggle against oppression. We hope to make a world of freedom, ecological sanity, and plenty. This means we must build movements from below where we are, and link our local struggles through solidarity with queers everywhere, through solidarity with colonial subjects like the people of Iraq who the American government are trying to subjugate to the power of American oil interests, and through solidarity with every oppressed group and every struggle against tyranny.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
The ridiculous comment posted by so-called “Real Anarchist” is obviously fake. You see, anarchists oppose all state violence and oppression. We do not defend a war on Iraq because of the oppression of queers in Palestine or Lebanon. Aside from being an obviously geographically irrelevant argument, since Iraq is not Palestine or Lebanon, it is not consistent with any real anarchist point of view. Real anarchists stand with oppressed people everywhere. This means we do our best to defend the people of the world from the imperialism of our own country (in my case this means fighting the American war machine which currently seeks to slaughter the Iraqi people further). Anarchists who are from non-imperialist (though still authoritarian) countries, like Iraq, struggle there to build the resistance that can topple the authoritarian regimes of men like Saddam Hussein – from below. We do not advocate the overthrow of a tyrant by the foreign military intervention of an imperialist power like the US! That only replaces one tyrant with another! We advocate the overthrow of tyranny where we are, along with building solidarity with people under attack and movements in struggle against oppression. We hope to make a world of freedom, ecological sanity, and plenty. This means we must build movements from below where we are, and link our local struggles through solidarity with queers everywhere, through solidarity with colonial subjects like the people of Iraq who the American government are trying to subjugate to the power of American oil interests, and through solidarity with every oppressed group and every struggle against tyranny.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
The ridiculous comment posted by so-called “Real Anarchist” is obviously fake. You see, anarchists oppose all state violence and oppression. We do not defend a war on Iraq because of the oppression of queers in Palestine or Lebanon. Aside from being an obviously geographically irrelevant argument, since Iraq is not Palestine or Lebanon, it is not consistent with any real anarchist point of view. Real anarchists stand with oppressed people everywhere. This means we do our best to defend the people of the world from the imperialism of our own country (in my case this means fighting the American war machine which currently seeks to slaughter the Iraqi people further). Anarchists who are from non-imperialist (though still authoritarian) countries, like Iraq, struggle there to build the resistance that can topple the authoritarian regimes of men like Saddam Hussein – from below. We do not advocate the overthrow of a tyrant by the foreign military intervention of an imperialist power like the US! That only replaces one tyrant with another! We advocate the overthrow of tyranny where we are, along with building solidarity with people under attack and movements in struggle against oppression. We hope to make a world of freedom, ecological sanity, and plenty. This means we must build movements from below where we are, and link our local struggles through solidarity with queers everywhere, through solidarity with colonial subjects like the people of Iraq who the American government are trying to subjugate to the power of American oil interests, and through solidarity with every oppressed group and every struggle against tyranny.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
The ridiculous comment posted by so-called “Real Anarchist” is obviously fake. You see, anarchists oppose all state violence and oppression. We do not defend a war on Iraq because of the oppression of queers in Palestine or Lebanon. Aside from being an obviously geographically irrelevant argument, since Iraq is not Palestine or Lebanon, it is not consistent with any real anarchist point of view. Real anarchists stand with oppressed people everywhere. This means we do our best to defend the people of the world from the imperialism of our own country (in my case this means fighting the American war machine which currently seeks to slaughter the Iraqi people further). Anarchists who are from non-imperialist (though still authoritarian) countries, like Iraq, struggle there to build the resistance that can topple the authoritarian regimes of men like Saddam Hussein – from below. We do not advocate the overthrow of a tyrant by the foreign military intervention of an imperialist power like the US! That only replaces one tyrant with another! We advocate the overthrow of tyranny where we are, along with building solidarity with people under attack and movements in struggle against oppression. We hope to make a world of freedom, ecological sanity, and plenty. This means we must build movements from below where we are, and link our local struggles through solidarity with queers everywhere, through solidarity with colonial subjects like the people of Iraq who the American government are trying to subjugate to the power of American oil interests, and through solidarity with every oppressed group and every struggle against tyranny.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
The ridiculous comment posted by so-called “Real Anarchist” is obviously fake. You see, anarchists oppose all state violence and oppression. We do not defend a war on Iraq because of the oppression of queers in Palestine or Lebanon. Aside from being an obviously geographically irrelevant argument, since Iraq is not Palestine or Lebanon, it is not consistent with any real anarchist point of view. Real anarchists stand with oppressed people everywhere. This means we do our best to defend the people of the world from the imperialism of our own country (in my case this means fighting the American war machine which currently seeks to slaughter the Iraqi people further). Anarchists who are from non-imperialist (though still authoritarian) countries, like Iraq, struggle there to build the resistance that can topple the authoritarian regimes of men like Saddam Hussein – from below. We do not advocate the overthrow of a tyrant by the foreign military intervention of an imperialist power like the US! That only replaces one tyrant with another! We advocate the overthrow of tyranny where we are, along with building solidarity with people under attack and movements in struggle against oppression. We hope to make a world of freedom, ecological sanity, and plenty. This means we must build movements from below where we are, and link our local struggles through solidarity with queers everywhere, through solidarity with colonial subjects like the people of Iraq who the American government are trying to subjugate to the power of American oil interests, and through solidarity with every oppressed group and every struggle against tyranny.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
The ridiculous comment posted by so-called “Real Anarchist” is obviously fake. You see, anarchists oppose all state violence and oppression. We do not defend a war on Iraq because of the oppression of queers in Palestine or Lebanon. Aside from being an obviously geographically irrelevant argument, since Iraq is not Palestine or Lebanon, it is not consistent with any real anarchist point of view. Real anarchists stand with oppressed people everywhere. This means we do our best to defend the people of the world from the imperialism of our own country (in my case this means fighting the American war machine which currently seeks to slaughter the Iraqi people further). Anarchists who are from non-imperialist (though still authoritarian) countries, like Iraq, struggle there to build the resistance that can topple the authoritarian regimes of men like Saddam Hussein – from below. We do not advocate the overthrow of a tyrant by the foreign military intervention of an imperialist power like the US! That only replaces one tyrant with another! We advocate the overthrow of tyranny where we are, along with building solidarity with people under attack and movements in struggle against oppression. We hope to make a world of freedom, ecological sanity, and plenty. This means we must build movements from below where we are, and link our local struggles through solidarity with queers everywhere, through solidarity with colonial subjects like the people of Iraq who the American government are trying to subjugate to the power of American oil interests, and through solidarity with every oppressed group and every struggle against tyranny.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
We must organize in our workplaces, our communities, our streets, everywhere we can, to take autonomous direct action on our own behalf. We must organize with others in free association and mutual aid, to work together both to get the things we need and to overthrow the tyranny and oppression that stands in the way of the realization of our hopes and dreams. Queerbashing and the bombing of cities are both obstacles to the liberation of all people, obstacles we must tear down and destroy.
Above, the Fake Anarchist is arguing that it’s okay to, in the famous words of a Vietnam-era American general (not a common source of ideas for real anarchists), that it is necessary “to destroy the village in order to save it,” with his implication that America was “saving it” from communism. Fake Anarchist offers the same logic, but with an added element of geographic confusion: we must support US military bombing of Iraq to save Lebanese and Palestinian people from homophobia. Not only is this the fucking stupidest thing I have seen all day, but it is also totally inconsistent with ANY anarchist tradition or idea.
Nice try, "Redneck"... now go back to COINTELPRO school.
“Nice try COINTELPRO” is your explanation of why you support the bombing of Iraq, and how you tie that support of killing Iraqis in any way to the oppression of queers in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, or a nonexistent Palestinian state?
I am against the formation of a Palestinian state, and I oppose every theocratic regime you mentioned in your comment. I am also for the elimination of the theocratic state of Israel, which is a consistent anarchist position. You claim to be an anarchist, so explain why you support Israel based on its supposed “more tolerant” attitude towards queers than Palestine would hold (of course, all we have to go on for believing Palestine would be worse is your assertion). Anarchists don’t support “more tolerant” oppressive regimes. We advocate the overthrow of every regime, and the replacement of oppression with freedom for all people, everywhere. Most importantly, none of the theocratic regimes mentioned above serve as a justification to attack Iraq, which was what these people were protesting against, and what you call them idiots for.
Nice try, yourself. You’re dumber than a bag of hammers. COINTELPRO would do a much better job than you. You’re likely just some deluded Ayn Rand worshipping wannabe “anarcho”-capitalist, “limited government” fool, accepting all the parts of government that matter: army, cops, jails. The best part of you ran down the crack of your momma’s ass.
How’s that for a retort to your bullshit name-calling?
Again, how the fuck do you claim to be anarchist and support US Government aggression abroad, with the slaughter of thousands of civilians, continued ruin and destruction, all of which strengthens the Hussein dictatorship, and increases the likelihood of an equally or more brutal successor regime?
I am against the formation of a Palestinian state, and I oppose every theocratic regime you mentioned in your comment. I am also for the elimination of the theocratic state of Israel, which is a consistent anarchist position. You claim to be an anarchist, so explain why you support Israel based on its supposed “more tolerant” attitude towards queers than Palestine would hold (of course, all we have to go on for believing Palestine would be worse is your assertion). Anarchists don’t support “more tolerant” oppressive regimes. We advocate the overthrow of every regime, and the replacement of oppression with freedom for all people, everywhere. Most importantly, none of the theocratic regimes mentioned above serve as a justification to attack Iraq, which was what these people were protesting against, and what you call them idiots for.
Nice try, yourself. You’re dumber than a bag of hammers. COINTELPRO would do a much better job than you. You’re likely just some deluded Ayn Rand worshipping wannabe “anarcho”-capitalist, “limited government” fool, accepting all the parts of government that matter: army, cops, jails. The best part of you ran down the crack of your momma’s ass.
How’s that for a retort to your bullshit name-calling?
Again, how the fuck do you claim to be anarchist and support US Government aggression abroad, with the slaughter of thousands of civilians, continued ruin and destruction, all of which strengthens the Hussein dictatorship, and increases the likelihood of an equally or more brutal successor regime?
I'm curious what 'redneck' is doing to "stop the war in its tracks", if protests are 'stupid'?
Seeing arguments about "anarchist tradition" make me giggle a little...isn't that an oxymoron?
One of the worst 'traditions' is frustration that leads to genuinely terrorist acts--in the name of spurring motion, or 'exciting' the movement--which in the end chill the movement against imperialist war.
Seeing arguments about "anarchist tradition" make me giggle a little...isn't that an oxymoron?
One of the worst 'traditions' is frustration that leads to genuinely terrorist acts--in the name of spurring motion, or 'exciting' the movement--which in the end chill the movement against imperialist war.
I basically agree with nessie, except the bit about “people do not fight wars.” I think I see what you’re trying to convey. I would say that nations start wars - people do not initiate wars. People pay the price in various ways – on the battlefield or as civilian casualties. Those who die on the battlefield are typically fighting the wars, on behalf of the nation, bosses, and politicians who start the wars. The “nation” in the abstract, and the political classes that run it, certainly don’t do the real fighting.
As for commie-fag, I don’t know exactly how to reply to you, since you address me by name but then combine quotes from two other people, one of whom I vehemently disagree with, to deride me or my position – it isn’t clear what your aim is.
I’ll begin with your quote about stopping the war “in its tracks,” which is actually a quote from nessie, not me. I agree with the sentiment, and I think the war must be stopped. I’m involved in anti-war organizing: I helped build the actions in San Francisco on Saturday the 26th, and I continue working locally to build a movement that can defeat the system and its war.
As for the bit about protests being “stupid” (referring to the protest pictured above, the one on Saturday the 26th which I helped build and participated in), I of course do not think protests generally or this protest in particular was “stupid:” I was part of making it happen! commie-fag, you attribute this quote to me, but I did not write it. It is quite clearly labeled above that “Real Anarchist” wrote this, and my posts to this thread ridicule him for this bullshit position, along with his untenable argument that one ought to oppose protest against war in Iraq on the basis of sexual oppression in other countries!
Of course, protest alone will not stop the war. We need to build a movement to increase our capacity for autonomous action in our workplaces, communities, schools, neighborhoods, streets, and elsewhere. This will not happen solely with protest aimed at getting an audience in Washington, but rather by aiming our protest and organizing at networking and making common cause with all people who are not part of or working consciously for the ends of the ruling class – the vast majority of the world’s people. We all have an enormous potential for action, and normally we let that be channeled into the dominant economic and political system. That must end if we intend to make real change – we must direct our own struggle, not allow it to be directed by politicians and bosses.
You finally managed to quote me correctly, though pointlessly, in reference to the anarchist tradition. No, the term “anarchist tradition” is not an oxymoron, which you blatantly prove in your very next sentence, by referring to the tradition within the anarchist movement (and shared by the communist movement, along with virtually every other major political tendency other than absolute pacifism) of frustrated, terrorist acts carried out with the mistaken hope that it will galvanize and spur the struggle. In this category are actions like those of Ted Kaczynski and Leon Czolgosz – definitely a part of the anarchist tradition, and a fruitless, counterproductive part. We agree that such actions “in the end chill the movement against imperialist war.”
But your acknowledgement of that part of the anarchist tradition you so despise forces the recognition that there are other parts of the anarchist tradition, unless you are somehow aware only of those aberrant parts (for instance, if the only things you’ve read about the anarchist tradition are denunciations in the authoritarian left press). If you are aware that there is an anarchist tradition beyond individual terrorism (and it is hard to learn about one without learning about the other) then by snickering at the valuable contributions of this movement along with its fuck ups, you undermine the struggle of common people everywhere.
My question for you, commie-fag, is this: are you just new to this, and have only read denunciations of anarchists by authoritarian leftists, or are you an old hand, one of those authoritarians penning the dishonest and misleading denunciations?
I’ll assume the former, and point out that anarchists have often in the history of peoples struggles played important roles. In the labor movements of the modern era, anarchists have often been admirable participants. For instance, May Day, which is celebrated around the world by virtually every labor movement from the most radical to the most reformist (with the exception of the reactionary American AFL-CIO, which accepted the US Government ban on May Day and its replacement by the historically meaningless “Labor Day”). May Day became a worldwide worker’s holiday because of the struggle in the US for the eight hour work day in 1886. That movement succeeded, but not without cost. The American government framed eight anarchist labor organizers for violence it is clear they did not commit, because they were the most effective and radical labor organizers in Chicago working on the eight hour day movement. Four were executed and one died in police custody under suspicious circumstances. The rest later had their sentences commuted and a pardon was extended to all by a later governor, once the crisis was past and the state had reasserted control, because it was so clear that the anarchists in question were labor organizers, not terrorists, and had been jailed and executed for effective labor organizing, not terrorist violence.
Emma Goldman, famous twentieth century feminist, was repeatedly jailed for educating women about birth control and was eventually deported from the US for her radical views in solidarity with other women, with laborers, and with all oppressed people, combined with her conviction that something could and must be done to overturn the system of oppression. She was a speaker and an organizer.
The anarchist labor union the CNT, in Spain in 1936 fought against the fascist forces of Franco when he tried to stage a coup. Without the anarchists of Spain, the country would have fallen much more quickly to fascism, and the first real battle of World War II would have been a much easier victory for the fascists. In Spain, the Stalinist “communists” betrayed the revolution by arresting real radicals and killing them, rather than fighting Franco, and by pushing back the gains of the revolution that had been made in Spain alongside the fight against Franco. Due to the betrayal of the Stalinists (along with the active fascist support for Franco from Hitler and Mussolini, and the tacit support for Franco from the “liberal democracies” – the US, Britain, and France), the anarchists in Spain were defeated and fascism triumphed. The fullest freedom experienced anywhere in the 20th century was crushed. But had they not fought, Franco’s coup would have been won in a matter of days, and World War II might have worked out differently in the end.
Anarchists in the American movements of the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s contributed to making movements more participatory, transparent, and effective. In the 1990s, anarchism once again became one of the dominant trends in American radicalism, reviving the traditions of the Industrial Workers of the World, the revolutionary organizing model for the later reformist CIO, along with newer influences. In 1999, anarchists shut down the meetings of the WTO in Seattle with nonviolent blockades and lock-downs (borrowed from anarchist struggles for the environment in the forests of the Pacific Northwest, from movements like Earth First!), while other anarchists did significant economic sabotage through property destruction to companies linked to the WTO – on too large a scale to be relegated to individual frustration, and in fact not in the category of terrorism but sabotage, despite the attempt of many liberals and leftists to aid the capitalist media in casting all the anarchists (pacifist blockaders as well as saboteurs) as “criminals” and “terrorists.” Others ignored the fact the anarchism on the barricades and falsely divided the direct actions into “good,” fundamentally liberal, blockaders and “bad” anarchist thugs. We have seen a repetition of this mantra in the authoritarian left and the capitalist press (not to mention capitalist films and other entertainment like “James Bond: The World is Not Enough” and “XXX”) since then: anarchists are evil terrorists.
Anarchists continue to struggle around the world, from Japan to Turkey, from Australia to Sierra Leone, from Argentina to Prague. There are many anarchist traditions, all of which draw from and contribute back to popular struggles against institutional power, whether in gender and sexual relations, family and age relations, workplace struggles, land and housing struggles, the fight against imperialism and capitalist globalization, the defense of the wild and of nature against the depredations of rapacious industry and consumerism, or struggles against the tyranny of the state itself, anarchists have plenty of traditions. What they all share in common is the resistance to tyranny by common people.
If anarchism has no traditions, or rather has no traditions other than terrorism, explain Tolstoy. Explain Proudhon. Explain Louise Michel. Explain the Mujeres Libres. Explain Voltairine de Cleyre. Explain ACT-UP. Explain the ELF (which engages only in sabotage, contrary to popular myth). Explain the recent POWER anarchist anti-war conference in LA. Explain Critical Mass. Explain Food Not Bombs. Explain indymedia.
As for commie-fag, I don’t know exactly how to reply to you, since you address me by name but then combine quotes from two other people, one of whom I vehemently disagree with, to deride me or my position – it isn’t clear what your aim is.
I’ll begin with your quote about stopping the war “in its tracks,” which is actually a quote from nessie, not me. I agree with the sentiment, and I think the war must be stopped. I’m involved in anti-war organizing: I helped build the actions in San Francisco on Saturday the 26th, and I continue working locally to build a movement that can defeat the system and its war.
As for the bit about protests being “stupid” (referring to the protest pictured above, the one on Saturday the 26th which I helped build and participated in), I of course do not think protests generally or this protest in particular was “stupid:” I was part of making it happen! commie-fag, you attribute this quote to me, but I did not write it. It is quite clearly labeled above that “Real Anarchist” wrote this, and my posts to this thread ridicule him for this bullshit position, along with his untenable argument that one ought to oppose protest against war in Iraq on the basis of sexual oppression in other countries!
Of course, protest alone will not stop the war. We need to build a movement to increase our capacity for autonomous action in our workplaces, communities, schools, neighborhoods, streets, and elsewhere. This will not happen solely with protest aimed at getting an audience in Washington, but rather by aiming our protest and organizing at networking and making common cause with all people who are not part of or working consciously for the ends of the ruling class – the vast majority of the world’s people. We all have an enormous potential for action, and normally we let that be channeled into the dominant economic and political system. That must end if we intend to make real change – we must direct our own struggle, not allow it to be directed by politicians and bosses.
You finally managed to quote me correctly, though pointlessly, in reference to the anarchist tradition. No, the term “anarchist tradition” is not an oxymoron, which you blatantly prove in your very next sentence, by referring to the tradition within the anarchist movement (and shared by the communist movement, along with virtually every other major political tendency other than absolute pacifism) of frustrated, terrorist acts carried out with the mistaken hope that it will galvanize and spur the struggle. In this category are actions like those of Ted Kaczynski and Leon Czolgosz – definitely a part of the anarchist tradition, and a fruitless, counterproductive part. We agree that such actions “in the end chill the movement against imperialist war.”
But your acknowledgement of that part of the anarchist tradition you so despise forces the recognition that there are other parts of the anarchist tradition, unless you are somehow aware only of those aberrant parts (for instance, if the only things you’ve read about the anarchist tradition are denunciations in the authoritarian left press). If you are aware that there is an anarchist tradition beyond individual terrorism (and it is hard to learn about one without learning about the other) then by snickering at the valuable contributions of this movement along with its fuck ups, you undermine the struggle of common people everywhere.
My question for you, commie-fag, is this: are you just new to this, and have only read denunciations of anarchists by authoritarian leftists, or are you an old hand, one of those authoritarians penning the dishonest and misleading denunciations?
I’ll assume the former, and point out that anarchists have often in the history of peoples struggles played important roles. In the labor movements of the modern era, anarchists have often been admirable participants. For instance, May Day, which is celebrated around the world by virtually every labor movement from the most radical to the most reformist (with the exception of the reactionary American AFL-CIO, which accepted the US Government ban on May Day and its replacement by the historically meaningless “Labor Day”). May Day became a worldwide worker’s holiday because of the struggle in the US for the eight hour work day in 1886. That movement succeeded, but not without cost. The American government framed eight anarchist labor organizers for violence it is clear they did not commit, because they were the most effective and radical labor organizers in Chicago working on the eight hour day movement. Four were executed and one died in police custody under suspicious circumstances. The rest later had their sentences commuted and a pardon was extended to all by a later governor, once the crisis was past and the state had reasserted control, because it was so clear that the anarchists in question were labor organizers, not terrorists, and had been jailed and executed for effective labor organizing, not terrorist violence.
Emma Goldman, famous twentieth century feminist, was repeatedly jailed for educating women about birth control and was eventually deported from the US for her radical views in solidarity with other women, with laborers, and with all oppressed people, combined with her conviction that something could and must be done to overturn the system of oppression. She was a speaker and an organizer.
The anarchist labor union the CNT, in Spain in 1936 fought against the fascist forces of Franco when he tried to stage a coup. Without the anarchists of Spain, the country would have fallen much more quickly to fascism, and the first real battle of World War II would have been a much easier victory for the fascists. In Spain, the Stalinist “communists” betrayed the revolution by arresting real radicals and killing them, rather than fighting Franco, and by pushing back the gains of the revolution that had been made in Spain alongside the fight against Franco. Due to the betrayal of the Stalinists (along with the active fascist support for Franco from Hitler and Mussolini, and the tacit support for Franco from the “liberal democracies” – the US, Britain, and France), the anarchists in Spain were defeated and fascism triumphed. The fullest freedom experienced anywhere in the 20th century was crushed. But had they not fought, Franco’s coup would have been won in a matter of days, and World War II might have worked out differently in the end.
Anarchists in the American movements of the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s contributed to making movements more participatory, transparent, and effective. In the 1990s, anarchism once again became one of the dominant trends in American radicalism, reviving the traditions of the Industrial Workers of the World, the revolutionary organizing model for the later reformist CIO, along with newer influences. In 1999, anarchists shut down the meetings of the WTO in Seattle with nonviolent blockades and lock-downs (borrowed from anarchist struggles for the environment in the forests of the Pacific Northwest, from movements like Earth First!), while other anarchists did significant economic sabotage through property destruction to companies linked to the WTO – on too large a scale to be relegated to individual frustration, and in fact not in the category of terrorism but sabotage, despite the attempt of many liberals and leftists to aid the capitalist media in casting all the anarchists (pacifist blockaders as well as saboteurs) as “criminals” and “terrorists.” Others ignored the fact the anarchism on the barricades and falsely divided the direct actions into “good,” fundamentally liberal, blockaders and “bad” anarchist thugs. We have seen a repetition of this mantra in the authoritarian left and the capitalist press (not to mention capitalist films and other entertainment like “James Bond: The World is Not Enough” and “XXX”) since then: anarchists are evil terrorists.
Anarchists continue to struggle around the world, from Japan to Turkey, from Australia to Sierra Leone, from Argentina to Prague. There are many anarchist traditions, all of which draw from and contribute back to popular struggles against institutional power, whether in gender and sexual relations, family and age relations, workplace struggles, land and housing struggles, the fight against imperialism and capitalist globalization, the defense of the wild and of nature against the depredations of rapacious industry and consumerism, or struggles against the tyranny of the state itself, anarchists have plenty of traditions. What they all share in common is the resistance to tyranny by common people.
If anarchism has no traditions, or rather has no traditions other than terrorism, explain Tolstoy. Explain Proudhon. Explain Louise Michel. Explain the Mujeres Libres. Explain Voltairine de Cleyre. Explain ACT-UP. Explain the ELF (which engages only in sabotage, contrary to popular myth). Explain the recent POWER anarchist anti-war conference in LA. Explain Critical Mass. Explain Food Not Bombs. Explain indymedia.
nessie wrote: "Anarchists, by definition, do not support America vs. Iraq or Americans vs. Iraqis. Anarchists support Americans plus Iraqis vs. America and Iraq. The people of America and the people of Iraq have more in common with each other than either have with their countries. People are people, no matter where they happen to have been born. We all want the same basic things out of life for ourselves and our loved ones. War provides very few of them, and all at unacceptable cost."
not true. america was built on war. americans -- including american workers -- have always been cool with war. the cost of war is quite acceptable to us. its what made us the richest people on the planet. we have more in common with our rulers -- clean drinking water, confidence in the existance of our next meal, a warm, safe place to sleep at night, the assumption of healthy babies, etc. -- than we do with the people of iraq who have none of these things.
the above pictures depict the politics of the califorina city of weed, circa 1995. at that time, weed was one of the many struggling predominately white towns fighting for a better share of the economy of the war against africans and mexicans called the "war on crime." weed was relatively impoverished, and wanted to better benefit from this war, as most white americans consider our right.
as long as we pretend that americans should oppose war because we don't benefit from war, our anti-war movement will be toothless and liberal, folks like the interantional answer will control it. however if we tell americans the truth, that we have been complicit in a criminal, war-driven society, that we have the right and responsiblity to oppose our society because ITS WRONG EVEN IF IT MAKES US RICH, that we don't have to live at the expense of the aspirations of the rest of the world's people for peace, happiness and control over their resources, and that "the war" has been going on for 500 years since columbus sailed the ocean blue, i believe americans will reject our identity and become complete human beings for whom "solidarity is not mere well-wishing, but accepting the same fate whether in victory or death." - che guevara
not true. america was built on war. americans -- including american workers -- have always been cool with war. the cost of war is quite acceptable to us. its what made us the richest people on the planet. we have more in common with our rulers -- clean drinking water, confidence in the existance of our next meal, a warm, safe place to sleep at night, the assumption of healthy babies, etc. -- than we do with the people of iraq who have none of these things.
the above pictures depict the politics of the califorina city of weed, circa 1995. at that time, weed was one of the many struggling predominately white towns fighting for a better share of the economy of the war against africans and mexicans called the "war on crime." weed was relatively impoverished, and wanted to better benefit from this war, as most white americans consider our right.
as long as we pretend that americans should oppose war because we don't benefit from war, our anti-war movement will be toothless and liberal, folks like the interantional answer will control it. however if we tell americans the truth, that we have been complicit in a criminal, war-driven society, that we have the right and responsiblity to oppose our society because ITS WRONG EVEN IF IT MAKES US RICH, that we don't have to live at the expense of the aspirations of the rest of the world's people for peace, happiness and control over their resources, and that "the war" has been going on for 500 years since columbus sailed the ocean blue, i believe americans will reject our identity and become complete human beings for whom "solidarity is not mere well-wishing, but accepting the same fate whether in victory or death." - che guevara
Not being very close to the gay movement, I'm not understanding the signs at this protest.
Isn't 'Queer' a slang term disparaging homosexuals.
I think 'Faggot' is also a slam term disparaging homosexual men.
Is it now politically correct to use the word Queer when referring to homosexuals? Or, is it only acceptable for them to use that term when referring to themselves?
What about Faggot?
Is it kind of like blacks using the "N" word to refer to themselves being OK, but it's still politically incorrect for whites to use the "N" word under any circumstances?
I'm trying to understand the liberal world. It's more than a little confusing.
Isn't 'Queer' a slang term disparaging homosexuals.
I think 'Faggot' is also a slam term disparaging homosexual men.
Is it now politically correct to use the word Queer when referring to homosexuals? Or, is it only acceptable for them to use that term when referring to themselves?
What about Faggot?
Is it kind of like blacks using the "N" word to refer to themselves being OK, but it's still politically incorrect for whites to use the "N" word under any circumstances?
I'm trying to understand the liberal world. It's more than a little confusing.
Whatever seems polite, mr. incomprehension. It's just a matter of simple social etiquette and politeness to use whatever term is appropriate. Unless you want to be a dirty, socially challenged village idiot sort of person.
If it's a word you wouldn't want to be called, don't use it. Perhaps you were away sick that day in kindergarten; maybe we ought to send you back.
If it's a word you wouldn't want to be called, don't use it. Perhaps you were away sick that day in kindergarten; maybe we ought to send you back.
matthew writes that american workers "have always been cool with war." Not true. The Industrial Workers of the World opposed World War I, and were ruthlessly suppressed by the government. The cost of war was not "acceptable" to american workers during Vietnam, when american workers opposed the war more than students according to polls, despite the greater media coverage of student anti-war sentiment. Why? It was the children of working class families that were coming home by the thousands in body bags, while the children of the middle and upper classes were relatively safe in the universities with student draft deferrments.
Yes, america was built on war. matthew argues that americans have clean drinking water, certainty of a next meal, warm and safe places to sleep, healthy babies, etc. In fact, many americans do not have these things. There are ridiculous numbers of homeless people in america. Drinking water is polluted in most areas, to a greater or lesser degree. There are many unemployed people, and with recent welfare cuts pushed through by Bill Clinton, there is no longer any guarantee of food stamps, so there is not even the minimal guarantee of a meal that used to exist. Infant mortality, deformities, schoolyard shootings, and childhood poverty (with the related starvation and health problems) are all higher in the US than in other industrialized countries. Where are these mythical "benefits" of war?
I agree that we have the right and responsibility to oppose our society because it is wrong even if it did make us rich, but it DOES NOT MAKE US RICH. It makes a few americans rich. The rest of us are struggling to keep up, slowly being marginalized, pushed down, while the income gap widens.
Also, nessie said that people generally want the same things, and that war provides few of those, and at unacceptable cost. matthew responded by only speaking about wealth. As I have just pointed out, war does not make all of us rich, it accelerates the process whereby a few americans get rich at the expense of the rest of us, who are slowly but surely doing worse year by year. Though it is true that most people want some level of material comfort (not the same as being rich), matthew completely ignored all the things that people want that have nothing to do with money.
First among them, which most people value more than even basic material standards (housing, food, etc) is security. People want to feel safe from attack. Has warfare made americans feel safer? Do americans benefit from the training the CIA has given to people like Osama bin Laden?
nessie is right, it is a question of class. Who is the ruling class in Iraq and in the United States? Who benefits from war? Who pays the price? When it is time for belt-tightening austerity measures, whose belts get tightened while others get looser? The basic fact is that there is not one "america," but many. The most basic division one can describe is the division between the ruling class and the rest of us. The "haves and the have-nots." Sure, plenty of the rest of us get more scraps from the big american bosses' table than Iraqis get from their rulers, because america is more powerful and there are more scraps. That doesn't magically make it in our interest to be dependent for our survival on scraps.
I agree that we should reject the notion of living at the expense of the rest of the world's people, and that we should extend our solidarity "in victory or death." However, this solidarity does not come from thinking of ourselves as "privileged americans," but in recognizing the ways in which we are all oppressed in common, despite the fact that there is variety in our oppression. For instance, the people of Weed are oppressed - being subject to economic depression administered by and for the wealthy is oppression whether you live in a rural white town or minority ghetto - and it is the falsehood that they have more in common with the american ruling class than their black and hispanic brothers and sisters that led them to support prison building and the racist "war on crime."
Yes, a diswasher in a restaurant is paid much less than a waitress, but both depend on the owner for survival, both are exploited, and it is in the interest of both to recognize that basic distinction. American workers are paid much more and live in greater comfort than the people of Iraq, but it makes sense for us to rebel together, against our common enemy: the bosses, rulers, and tyrants of the world.
As for which words are acceptable these days, "Adult Supervisor," folks are reclaiming words like "queer," "faggot," "bitch," "cunt," and "nigger" to gut them of oppressive power, and to reclaim them as in-group identifiers with implied resistance, defiance, and solidarity, which means that if you are "not close to the gay movement," you might want to refrain from using the terms "queer" and "faggot," until you become close enough to know which words your new queer friends will be comfortable with. Until then, use the terms "gay" and "homosexual," the more traditionally non-derogatory terms, which are still fine with most people.
Yes, america was built on war. matthew argues that americans have clean drinking water, certainty of a next meal, warm and safe places to sleep, healthy babies, etc. In fact, many americans do not have these things. There are ridiculous numbers of homeless people in america. Drinking water is polluted in most areas, to a greater or lesser degree. There are many unemployed people, and with recent welfare cuts pushed through by Bill Clinton, there is no longer any guarantee of food stamps, so there is not even the minimal guarantee of a meal that used to exist. Infant mortality, deformities, schoolyard shootings, and childhood poverty (with the related starvation and health problems) are all higher in the US than in other industrialized countries. Where are these mythical "benefits" of war?
I agree that we have the right and responsibility to oppose our society because it is wrong even if it did make us rich, but it DOES NOT MAKE US RICH. It makes a few americans rich. The rest of us are struggling to keep up, slowly being marginalized, pushed down, while the income gap widens.
Also, nessie said that people generally want the same things, and that war provides few of those, and at unacceptable cost. matthew responded by only speaking about wealth. As I have just pointed out, war does not make all of us rich, it accelerates the process whereby a few americans get rich at the expense of the rest of us, who are slowly but surely doing worse year by year. Though it is true that most people want some level of material comfort (not the same as being rich), matthew completely ignored all the things that people want that have nothing to do with money.
First among them, which most people value more than even basic material standards (housing, food, etc) is security. People want to feel safe from attack. Has warfare made americans feel safer? Do americans benefit from the training the CIA has given to people like Osama bin Laden?
nessie is right, it is a question of class. Who is the ruling class in Iraq and in the United States? Who benefits from war? Who pays the price? When it is time for belt-tightening austerity measures, whose belts get tightened while others get looser? The basic fact is that there is not one "america," but many. The most basic division one can describe is the division between the ruling class and the rest of us. The "haves and the have-nots." Sure, plenty of the rest of us get more scraps from the big american bosses' table than Iraqis get from their rulers, because america is more powerful and there are more scraps. That doesn't magically make it in our interest to be dependent for our survival on scraps.
I agree that we should reject the notion of living at the expense of the rest of the world's people, and that we should extend our solidarity "in victory or death." However, this solidarity does not come from thinking of ourselves as "privileged americans," but in recognizing the ways in which we are all oppressed in common, despite the fact that there is variety in our oppression. For instance, the people of Weed are oppressed - being subject to economic depression administered by and for the wealthy is oppression whether you live in a rural white town or minority ghetto - and it is the falsehood that they have more in common with the american ruling class than their black and hispanic brothers and sisters that led them to support prison building and the racist "war on crime."
Yes, a diswasher in a restaurant is paid much less than a waitress, but both depend on the owner for survival, both are exploited, and it is in the interest of both to recognize that basic distinction. American workers are paid much more and live in greater comfort than the people of Iraq, but it makes sense for us to rebel together, against our common enemy: the bosses, rulers, and tyrants of the world.
As for which words are acceptable these days, "Adult Supervisor," folks are reclaiming words like "queer," "faggot," "bitch," "cunt," and "nigger" to gut them of oppressive power, and to reclaim them as in-group identifiers with implied resistance, defiance, and solidarity, which means that if you are "not close to the gay movement," you might want to refrain from using the terms "queer" and "faggot," until you become close enough to know which words your new queer friends will be comfortable with. Until then, use the terms "gay" and "homosexual," the more traditionally non-derogatory terms, which are still fine with most people.
For more information:
http://www.infoshop.org/
"we have more in common with our rulers ... the assumption of healthy babies, etc. --"
"Some of us do. Some of us don’t. And no, it’s not determined by race."
the infant mortalitiy rates are two to four times higher for african people than people of european decent in america. thats just a fact. we can say its a determination of "race," but its really about colonialism. nessie goes "so do, some don't" about americans and iraqis equally, with regard to access to drinkable water.
how many people reading this are worried about where they are going to find their next drink of clean water? i'm not talking about bottled spring water, i'm talking about water thats boiled after being drawn from a sewer. this is a common concern in iraq. americans simply do not have this problem. we export this problem to iraq, for the benefit of all americans.
both nessie and redneck anarchist don't provide any analysis as to why the war on africans and mexicans, popularly known as the "war on crime" and/or the "war on drugs" would be so appealing to white workers. this is demonstrated in the images from weed ca. circa 1995.
the white workers of weed support this war. look at the banner hanging above their "welcome to weed" sign. they see this war as the solution to their economic troubles.
vietnam was the one exception. white people of all classes united to oppose this war. this is because the north vietnamese army provided us with a political education about the costs of war in the form of filled body bags. however, african people -- who never were, and aren't today "americans" -- have always opposed all u.s. wars en-masse, including WWII -- which most white people in the u.s. still today generally believe was a morally just action on the u.s. part.
this is because as malcom x said "black people are the victims of america." african people, as a people, have no stake in american wars they are another victim of u.s. warfare. however they also have no stake in a peace movement which defines peace as something to appear when white people have to be convinced its in our material interest (i.e.; we might be the ones to die, or the mythical slogan "jobs not war") to oppose war.
thats why you'd be hard pressed in find much over 100 africans in the 80,000+-strong "no war in iraq" march last weekend. looking at the pictures, there was an equally dismal percentage of africans in the anarchist breakaway march. from the analysis from anarchists here, this is not surprising.
about 8 years ago, i was worker at the richmond oil refinery. every once in a while, some manifestation of marxist "workers of the world unite" theory would appear at the gates of the refinery in the form someone who wanted to sell some leftist socialist newspaper. they would always be the object of total ridicule and derision inside the control house over at distillery 4. this is because the workers knew better than the socialist cadre newspaper sales people that war in iraq means jobs in america. and dead iraqis meant cheap oil flowing into labor pool of the white working class of america.
i just got done with my shu shift on powell and market, where i spent 12 midnight saturday to 11:00pm sunday inside a box that was designed to re-enact the shu program. i spent about 15 hours before that time doing outreach. in that time either directly experienced, or heard from inside the shu the most common reaction to africans and mexicans to the box being they either have been, or had a family member in prison -- or the shu program itself. the most common reaaction from white people was the question "what did they do to get in there?" the assumption of this question was the primarily black and brown clientele of the shu program must have done something deserving of the torture that occurs inside these walls. please if you doubt this, if you think i'm excagerating, come out to the 5-day vigil on market and powell and see for yourself. it will go on til tuesday.
lets stop pretending that "workers" all have the same class interests. there are workers of the oppresor nation and workers of the oppresed nation. capitalism is defined as white power. white people of all classes have been the benefactors, if not eqaully. war rescued white people from the plagues and fuedal peasantry of europe. the more honest we can be about this, the better equipt we are to be allies of the colonized who are fighting for peace as a matter of life and death right now. its not a moral issue in iraq; its a matter of survival.
"Some of us do. Some of us don’t. And no, it’s not determined by race."
the infant mortalitiy rates are two to four times higher for african people than people of european decent in america. thats just a fact. we can say its a determination of "race," but its really about colonialism. nessie goes "so do, some don't" about americans and iraqis equally, with regard to access to drinkable water.
how many people reading this are worried about where they are going to find their next drink of clean water? i'm not talking about bottled spring water, i'm talking about water thats boiled after being drawn from a sewer. this is a common concern in iraq. americans simply do not have this problem. we export this problem to iraq, for the benefit of all americans.
both nessie and redneck anarchist don't provide any analysis as to why the war on africans and mexicans, popularly known as the "war on crime" and/or the "war on drugs" would be so appealing to white workers. this is demonstrated in the images from weed ca. circa 1995.
the white workers of weed support this war. look at the banner hanging above their "welcome to weed" sign. they see this war as the solution to their economic troubles.
vietnam was the one exception. white people of all classes united to oppose this war. this is because the north vietnamese army provided us with a political education about the costs of war in the form of filled body bags. however, african people -- who never were, and aren't today "americans" -- have always opposed all u.s. wars en-masse, including WWII -- which most white people in the u.s. still today generally believe was a morally just action on the u.s. part.
this is because as malcom x said "black people are the victims of america." african people, as a people, have no stake in american wars they are another victim of u.s. warfare. however they also have no stake in a peace movement which defines peace as something to appear when white people have to be convinced its in our material interest (i.e.; we might be the ones to die, or the mythical slogan "jobs not war") to oppose war.
thats why you'd be hard pressed in find much over 100 africans in the 80,000+-strong "no war in iraq" march last weekend. looking at the pictures, there was an equally dismal percentage of africans in the anarchist breakaway march. from the analysis from anarchists here, this is not surprising.
about 8 years ago, i was worker at the richmond oil refinery. every once in a while, some manifestation of marxist "workers of the world unite" theory would appear at the gates of the refinery in the form someone who wanted to sell some leftist socialist newspaper. they would always be the object of total ridicule and derision inside the control house over at distillery 4. this is because the workers knew better than the socialist cadre newspaper sales people that war in iraq means jobs in america. and dead iraqis meant cheap oil flowing into labor pool of the white working class of america.
i just got done with my shu shift on powell and market, where i spent 12 midnight saturday to 11:00pm sunday inside a box that was designed to re-enact the shu program. i spent about 15 hours before that time doing outreach. in that time either directly experienced, or heard from inside the shu the most common reaction to africans and mexicans to the box being they either have been, or had a family member in prison -- or the shu program itself. the most common reaaction from white people was the question "what did they do to get in there?" the assumption of this question was the primarily black and brown clientele of the shu program must have done something deserving of the torture that occurs inside these walls. please if you doubt this, if you think i'm excagerating, come out to the 5-day vigil on market and powell and see for yourself. it will go on til tuesday.
lets stop pretending that "workers" all have the same class interests. there are workers of the oppresor nation and workers of the oppresed nation. capitalism is defined as white power. white people of all classes have been the benefactors, if not eqaully. war rescued white people from the plagues and fuedal peasantry of europe. the more honest we can be about this, the better equipt we are to be allies of the colonized who are fighting for peace as a matter of life and death right now. its not a moral issue in iraq; its a matter of survival.
i appreciate the ability to engage in ideological struggle with comrades -- sometimes sharp and angry -- and at the same time be able to put aside those differences to confront a common enemy. i appreciate speaking my mind, and hearing others' minds, without concern that the conversation will degrade into name calling and other insults. sincere thanks, nessie.
now, time for bed and a warm person waiting there and a better appreciation for their existance after a night in the shu on market and powell. i'm more angry at the world of haves and have-nots. the muslim sacrament of ramadan makes a lot of sense.
matthew from UHURU
now, time for bed and a warm person waiting there and a better appreciation for their existance after a night in the shu on market and powell. i'm more angry at the world of haves and have-nots. the muslim sacrament of ramadan makes a lot of sense.
matthew from UHURU
Actually, matthew, though you write that I don’t offer any analysis of why the racist “war on crime” has appeal for white workers (and your evidence, the signs in Weed in favor of prison building in the town), in fact I did. I pointed out that the people of Weed are subject both to real economic hardship imposed by capitalism, and the illusion that they have more in common with the rulers of america who put them in that predicament than they do with their black and brown brothers and sisters. This illusion is exactly what you are promoting – you have written here that white workers share more in common with the rulers of america than with racial minorities in their economic class. This illusion of a unified white racial interest is the basis of racism in america, and is the basis of the appeal of the racist “war on crime” to poor and working class whites.
You write that Vietnam was the “one exception,” in which the american working class opposed war. Apparently you ignored my example of the Industrial Workers of the World’s opposition to World War I. Workers and poor people have usually voiced the strongest opposition to war in american society. Or will you now argue that the middle and upper classes are stronger opponents of war?
War in Iraq does not mean “jobs in america.” Cheap oil does not flow into the “labor pool of the white working class of america.” There is simply no connection. Oil does not “flow into the labor pool.” The american labor pool is one resource exploited by multinational corporations, oil is another resource exploited by multinational corporations. These companies seek to exploit every resource as cheaply as possible and sell their products for the highest price they can get. Oil companies can still get oil from many places in the globe – war on Iraq will only mean one more source, and thus cheaper oil for the companies. They use this to increase profit margins, not to pass on the savings to consumers, to raise the wages of workers, or to provide more jobs. They continue to cut jobs as fast as technology will allow, and they continue to push wages down as low as they can, whether or not they have access to Iraqi oil.
I agree that the slogan “money for jobs not war” is ridiculous, but perhaps for different reasons.
Sorry matthew, but it still seems to me like you’re just selling the same racist myth that white power racists sell – that white people have some broad common interest regardless of economic class, gender, sexuality, individuality, and a host of other things. I’m not reducing everything down to “workers of the world, unite,” but neither am I reducing everything down to "black vs. white." I am saying that it is worth comparing the difference in interests between the ultra-rich people who run the world and everyone else, and then comparing the difference in interests between the majority of white and majority of nonwhite people. There are differences in both cases, but in the first case it is a massive gulf, whereas the second case is more complex.
For instance, white and nonwhite people would benefit from universal health care, from abolition of the prison system, and from taking direct control of their workplaces and neigborhoods. All of these things would directly counter the interests of the rulers of society.
You write that Vietnam was the “one exception,” in which the american working class opposed war. Apparently you ignored my example of the Industrial Workers of the World’s opposition to World War I. Workers and poor people have usually voiced the strongest opposition to war in american society. Or will you now argue that the middle and upper classes are stronger opponents of war?
War in Iraq does not mean “jobs in america.” Cheap oil does not flow into the “labor pool of the white working class of america.” There is simply no connection. Oil does not “flow into the labor pool.” The american labor pool is one resource exploited by multinational corporations, oil is another resource exploited by multinational corporations. These companies seek to exploit every resource as cheaply as possible and sell their products for the highest price they can get. Oil companies can still get oil from many places in the globe – war on Iraq will only mean one more source, and thus cheaper oil for the companies. They use this to increase profit margins, not to pass on the savings to consumers, to raise the wages of workers, or to provide more jobs. They continue to cut jobs as fast as technology will allow, and they continue to push wages down as low as they can, whether or not they have access to Iraqi oil.
I agree that the slogan “money for jobs not war” is ridiculous, but perhaps for different reasons.
Sorry matthew, but it still seems to me like you’re just selling the same racist myth that white power racists sell – that white people have some broad common interest regardless of economic class, gender, sexuality, individuality, and a host of other things. I’m not reducing everything down to “workers of the world, unite,” but neither am I reducing everything down to "black vs. white." I am saying that it is worth comparing the difference in interests between the ultra-rich people who run the world and everyone else, and then comparing the difference in interests between the majority of white and majority of nonwhite people. There are differences in both cases, but in the first case it is a massive gulf, whereas the second case is more complex.
For instance, white and nonwhite people would benefit from universal health care, from abolition of the prison system, and from taking direct control of their workplaces and neigborhoods. All of these things would directly counter the interests of the rulers of society.
For more information:
http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc
dear anarchist redneck, frist, thanks to you also for offering ideological struggle without insults and personal attacks.
your analysis about weed california is idealism. you say they've got more in common with their black and brown brothers and sisters and the rulers of america. that sounds very beautiful. however, the u.s. government offers them tangeable resources if a prison is built in their town. the black and brown vicitms of the prison economy. thus very tengeable material unity with the goals and objectives of the rulers of america to lock up africans and raza. weed wouldn't exisit if it weren't for the u.s. conquering of mexico and the indigenous people of california around the 1850s. the reason this war was so popular with white rulers and the general population was becuase it meant land for white people.
your analysis about weed california is idealism. you say they've got more in common with their black and brown brothers and sisters and the rulers of america. that sounds very beautiful. however, the u.s. government offers them tangeable resources if a prison is built in their town. the black and brown vicitms of the prison economy. thus very tengeable material unity with the goals and objectives of the rulers of america to lock up africans and raza. weed wouldn't exisit if it weren't for the u.s. conquering of mexico and the indigenous people of california around the 1850s. the reason this war was so popular with white rulers and the general population was becuase it meant land for white people.
dear anarchist redneck, frist, thanks to you also for offering ideological struggle without insults and personal attacks.
your analysis about weed california is idealism. you say they've got more in common with their black and brown brothers and sisters and the rulers of america. that sounds very beautiful. however, the u.s. government offers them tangeable resources if a prison is built in their town. the black and brown vicitms of the prison economy. thus very tengeable material unity with the goals and objectives of the rulers of america to lock up africans and raza. weed wouldn't exisit if it weren't for the u.s. conquering of mexico and the indigenous people of california around the 1850s. the reason this war was so popular with white rulers and the general population was becuase it meant land for white people.
your analysis about weed california is idealism. you say they've got more in common with their black and brown brothers and sisters and the rulers of america. that sounds very beautiful. however, the u.s. government offers them tangeable resources if a prison is built in their town. the black and brown vicitms of the prison economy. thus very tengeable material unity with the goals and objectives of the rulers of america to lock up africans and raza. weed wouldn't exisit if it weren't for the u.s. conquering of mexico and the indigenous people of california around the 1850s. the reason this war was so popular with white rulers and the general population was becuase it meant land for white people.
dear anarchist redneck, first, thanks to you also for offering ideological struggle without insults and personal attacks.
your analysis about weed california is idealism. you say they've got more in common with their black and brown brothers and sisters than the rulers of america. that sounds great. however, the u.s. government offers them tangeable resources if a prison is built in their town in the form of jobs as prison guards and adminstrators, and services to provide the tens of thousands of people coming through their town to vist their loved ones, the black and brown vicitms of the prison economy.
thus you see very tangeable material unity between the white workers of weed and rulers of america with the the goals and objectives to lock up as many africans and raza as they can get away with.
you talk about economic hardships imposed on weed by capitalism. however, weed wouldn't exisit if it weren't for the capitalist effort of conquering mexico and committing genocide against the indigenous people of california around the 1850s. the u.s. didn't even need a formal army to achieve this goal. regular white people, armed with the american dream and a rifle would head west and take land through slaughter with the blessing of their rulers. now we have weed california and other towns.
i didn't address your example of wwI because you pointed out a political party opposed it and that wasn't the question at hand. my point is amercans generally support war because war is what made america exist and americans the richest people on the planet.
the fact that you can't see the priviledged life of americans -- including workers -- and its connection to control over the worlds primary energy source, oil, is more of the same idealism.
it appears to you i'm selling racist myths. however you're the one making up mythical "black and white unite and fight." scenarios. this betrays a racist lack of confidence in white people being able to unite ON PRINCIPLE to oppose "the war," which began in 1492. our material interest should and can be the desire to be principled human beings. we can build a movement based on this. but we need to hear the truth.
you write: "I’m not reducing everything down to 'workers of the world, unite,.'...I am saying that it is worth comparing the difference in interests between the ultra-rich people who run the world and everyone else, and then comparing the difference in interests between the majority of white and majority of nonwhite people." but thats just lip service. your analysis so far is designed to liquidate the colonial contradiction within capitalism. the handfull of "ultra rich" couldn't function without the complicity of the majority of the white world. if we are too timid in our analysis to get to the root of this complicity we will never be much of a challenge to the few that should be isolated. your watered down analysis, designed to apologize for white society and protect white people from understanding our relationship to capitalism, does the anti-war struggle a tremendous disservice.
your analysis about weed california is idealism. you say they've got more in common with their black and brown brothers and sisters than the rulers of america. that sounds great. however, the u.s. government offers them tangeable resources if a prison is built in their town in the form of jobs as prison guards and adminstrators, and services to provide the tens of thousands of people coming through their town to vist their loved ones, the black and brown vicitms of the prison economy.
thus you see very tangeable material unity between the white workers of weed and rulers of america with the the goals and objectives to lock up as many africans and raza as they can get away with.
you talk about economic hardships imposed on weed by capitalism. however, weed wouldn't exisit if it weren't for the capitalist effort of conquering mexico and committing genocide against the indigenous people of california around the 1850s. the u.s. didn't even need a formal army to achieve this goal. regular white people, armed with the american dream and a rifle would head west and take land through slaughter with the blessing of their rulers. now we have weed california and other towns.
i didn't address your example of wwI because you pointed out a political party opposed it and that wasn't the question at hand. my point is amercans generally support war because war is what made america exist and americans the richest people on the planet.
the fact that you can't see the priviledged life of americans -- including workers -- and its connection to control over the worlds primary energy source, oil, is more of the same idealism.
it appears to you i'm selling racist myths. however you're the one making up mythical "black and white unite and fight." scenarios. this betrays a racist lack of confidence in white people being able to unite ON PRINCIPLE to oppose "the war," which began in 1492. our material interest should and can be the desire to be principled human beings. we can build a movement based on this. but we need to hear the truth.
you write: "I’m not reducing everything down to 'workers of the world, unite,.'...I am saying that it is worth comparing the difference in interests between the ultra-rich people who run the world and everyone else, and then comparing the difference in interests between the majority of white and majority of nonwhite people." but thats just lip service. your analysis so far is designed to liquidate the colonial contradiction within capitalism. the handfull of "ultra rich" couldn't function without the complicity of the majority of the white world. if we are too timid in our analysis to get to the root of this complicity we will never be much of a challenge to the few that should be isolated. your watered down analysis, designed to apologize for white society and protect white people from understanding our relationship to capitalism, does the anti-war struggle a tremendous disservice.
Lots of us queer folks use "queer" to describe ourselves. It's said to be easier than the clumbsy "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender," which some people shorten to GLBT. But lots of GLBT people dislike the word "queer": it is seen as too in-your-face by some. By some GLBT people of color it is seen as a white-word, that is, used by white gays to refer to white gays. So it's controversial. Lots of non-gay people use it in a non-deratory way to refer to the gay community or their gay friends. "Faggot" is still mostly the word of choice for gay-haters. It's sometimes used by gays to jokingly refer to themselves, but nothing like the way the N-word has been taken on by African-Americans. "Dyke" however has been completely taken back by lesbians, and that word is used all the time. There's even an annual Dyke March held now in most cities in the US.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$215.00 donated
in the past month
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