Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
An Open Letter to the Brown Berets
The following is a letter I emailed to the Brown Beret's to address specific problems I've had with their actions. It is meant to be a starting point in a constructive dialogue.
An Open Letter to the Brown Beret's
I am writing to address some issues regarding the role that the Brown Berets have taken on in the recent marches around the immigration struggle. I will also write about a few other criticisms I have of the activities of the group in general. I bring these up for the Beret's to discuss. You can respond if you like, ignore me or do as you please with my words.
I'm offering these words of critique as a friendly gesture to those who may find value in them. When I offer critique it is meant to offer some analysis and address what I see as contradictions between ones practice and ones stated goals. Specifically, I am referring to the goal of acting as catalyst and actualizer of revolutionary activity. For a short definition of what I mean by revolution, I'll state that I am not merely wanting a change of the guard, or a "dictatorship of the proletariat", or any other authoritarian rubbish. When I speak of revolution, I am referring to a transformation of relationships, in order to destroy class divisions, hierarchy, exploitation. I am talking about a world where people and others who inhabit this planet are able to create life on their own terms and not someone else's.
My impression is that most, if not everyone in the Brown Beret's are advocates of revolution. What this means exactly, I imagine may differ greatly from person to person. But I'll use my simple definition as the point of reference in this letter.
My criticisms are as follows...
Brown Berets Collaborating With The Police or Acting As Police
Examples:
1) A Brown Beret organizer talking to the police chief of Watsonville over the phone before the second student walkout day to negotiate how to deal with the students.
2) During the second day of student walkouts, Beret's went to a variety of student's meeting spots and directed them into the plaza.
3) During marches Brown Beret's direct crowds so as to minimize social unrest.
I understood the intention to be that Beret's were trying to prevent a repeat of the previous days brutality of students. Certainly what happened with the previous walk-out was unpleasant for many students. My criticism of the approach taken by the Brown Beret's in this scenario was that rather than encourage self-organization and revolt, the Beret's took on the role of vanguardists managing revolt. In the same way that unions act as power brokers with the owner/boss of a factory or business, the Beret's acted as intermediaries and ultimately as recuperators of revolt. Anytime there is negotiating with the police, it is clear that revolutionary activity has ceased.
It makes sense that the police were interested in the Beret's help. The Beret's were able to do more effectively what the police couldn't, control the crowds of students without receiving negative publicity. This was effectively done by sending Beret's to each of the students meeting locations, then convincing them to concentrate in the plaza.
At least one person with the Beret's claimed to have radicalized a thousand kids at these demonstrations. I would say that the first demonstration that the Beret's organized inspired students, but by taking the initiative, they (the students) took the steps towards radicalization. It was the Beret's that cut off this process of radicalization. They did this by taking on a leadership role and directing the activities of the students, rather than letting them, think about, discuss, and experiment with their own activities. Revolution is a process of empowerment, creativity and self-directed activity, not replication of the leader/follower roles of this society. It is fine to organize demonstrations, but the role of facilitation should end there. It is instigation to revolt, not trying to control people that will feed possibilities of insurrection.
4) In Santa Cruz on May Day, at the San Lorenzo park. A racist environmentalist carried a sign "Redwoods or Open Borders?" Despite this guy's poor analysis, some Brown Beret's attempted to pacify people who were harassing him upon his request, so as not to "distract from the speakers." Aside from the fact that the speakers were monotonous, it's disappointing to see not just tolerance but defense of people like this man.
5) The police told the Brown Beret's to control and clear out the pedestrian bridge at San Lorenzo Park on May 1st because there were "too many" people on the bridge. The Beret's then proceeded to thin out the crowd.
The fact that Beret's would rather tolerate the racist with the sign then cause a stir, says a lot about those organizers politics. It seems like they've swallowed some liberal-hippy notions about how we should "all just get along."
Personally, I'm pretty discouraged with the same old rhetoric, boring marches, and drawn-out rallies. Is it any wonder that people started to leave shortly after they reached San Lorenzo Park? People will stay and involve themselves in activities that they consider relevant. Chanting "Si se puede" in the park isn't very interesting or relevant.
I understand that not everyone there is interested in social conflict and that this event may not be the preferred moment for that activity for some people. But I am critiquing the Beret's roles as revolutionaries. If you want revolution, you cannot act against it. All of these examples and the critiques that follow I'm arguing to be counter-revolutionary acts. If you want a self-organized society, you need to allow space for people to act as they see fit (as long as it doesn't impinge on you or your fiends), not herding people around or other authoritarian behaviors.
Some Thoughts on Beret's Taking Position Within City Government
"When you take on the function of providing social services (through charity and other offerings) - where the state has left off - you cease to be a counter-force to the system, but rather a buttress to reinforce it. By providing scraps for the exploited to survive on, you hold back the disorder of the marginalized and any subsequent insurgency."
I've heard a little about Beret's taking up various positions within the local political racket of Watsonville to try to influence political decisions in a more positive direction.
I agree with the Berets in Los Angeles (or was it San Diego?) who have chosen to reject the taking of political positions within government. By joining the bureaucracy, all radical content gets drained from ones aspirations. People get caught up in trying to get scraps from those who hold a hegemony on power. It becomes a game of trying to get more and more adherents to a cause (an abstraction) and to present oneself as a representative of "the people," in an attempt at finding band-aids on our gaping societal wound. If one accepts that we cannot join the power structure and that revolution is necessary, politics must be abandoned. Those who join the bureaucracy, are buried in it.
Graffiti Cleanup
The other thing I overheard was mention of graffiti cleanup. To me graffiti is important to encourage rather than discourage. It's a form of defiance, rejecting the sacredness of property. It is a sign on the facade of stability that all is not well.
Sneaking around at night, avoiding the police, climbing into the oddest places to scrawl one's tag. There's a lot in that that is subversive, even if the message written isn't "radical." And certainly it encompasses using skills we all could use more practice in.
Graffiti clean-up seems more like a respect for yuppy values and a dis to taggers. There's a lot to be pissed about and defiance is something to encourage, not cover up.
Closing
I think it is good that the Beret's initiated demonstrations to the immigration bill, not in an attempt to run after specific pieces of legislation, but to increase the social clash and move towards a more conflictual relationship with the defenders of the social order. I'm opposed to the role that the Beret's took in directing and controlling crowds. Anyone who is claiming authority and telling others what to do is a cop, whether they have a brown band on their arm or a badge on their chest.
All these various examples of roles taken (acting as representatives of struggle, controlling demonstrations, negotiating with those in power, etc.) are all examples of vanguardist political methods of the 60's which failed to produce a better world. The hierarchical relationships are still maintained within these models.
By writing this it is a confirmation that I see the Brown Beret's as a very significant grass-roots group that has a lot of potential. I've appreciated the "Youth and Power" events, the various attempts at spreading awareness about important issues, and the attentiveness that Beret's have given to issues that emanate from their communities. The Beret's I've met tended to be sincere and dedicated. I can't think of a public organization within Santa Cruz County that is as influential as the Beret's.
I want to reiterate that my criticism is meant as a tool, for you to consider, reflect upon, and take what you think is of value. I'm not attempting to personally attack. I offer these words because I care about what the Beret's do with their efforts, but I don't think the means sometimes used are congruent with what I think are the intended ends. I offer my assessment of the situation with the intention of provoking thought and bringing up contradictions that may prevent individuals working with the Beret's from actualizing their goals. I'd be interested in discussing this further with any of those who are part of the Brown Beret's. Responses are appreciated.
"Brian Carwell"
An invisible insurgent
I am writing to address some issues regarding the role that the Brown Berets have taken on in the recent marches around the immigration struggle. I will also write about a few other criticisms I have of the activities of the group in general. I bring these up for the Beret's to discuss. You can respond if you like, ignore me or do as you please with my words.
I'm offering these words of critique as a friendly gesture to those who may find value in them. When I offer critique it is meant to offer some analysis and address what I see as contradictions between ones practice and ones stated goals. Specifically, I am referring to the goal of acting as catalyst and actualizer of revolutionary activity. For a short definition of what I mean by revolution, I'll state that I am not merely wanting a change of the guard, or a "dictatorship of the proletariat", or any other authoritarian rubbish. When I speak of revolution, I am referring to a transformation of relationships, in order to destroy class divisions, hierarchy, exploitation. I am talking about a world where people and others who inhabit this planet are able to create life on their own terms and not someone else's.
My impression is that most, if not everyone in the Brown Beret's are advocates of revolution. What this means exactly, I imagine may differ greatly from person to person. But I'll use my simple definition as the point of reference in this letter.
My criticisms are as follows...
Brown Berets Collaborating With The Police or Acting As Police
Examples:
1) A Brown Beret organizer talking to the police chief of Watsonville over the phone before the second student walkout day to negotiate how to deal with the students.
2) During the second day of student walkouts, Beret's went to a variety of student's meeting spots and directed them into the plaza.
3) During marches Brown Beret's direct crowds so as to minimize social unrest.
I understood the intention to be that Beret's were trying to prevent a repeat of the previous days brutality of students. Certainly what happened with the previous walk-out was unpleasant for many students. My criticism of the approach taken by the Brown Beret's in this scenario was that rather than encourage self-organization and revolt, the Beret's took on the role of vanguardists managing revolt. In the same way that unions act as power brokers with the owner/boss of a factory or business, the Beret's acted as intermediaries and ultimately as recuperators of revolt. Anytime there is negotiating with the police, it is clear that revolutionary activity has ceased.
It makes sense that the police were interested in the Beret's help. The Beret's were able to do more effectively what the police couldn't, control the crowds of students without receiving negative publicity. This was effectively done by sending Beret's to each of the students meeting locations, then convincing them to concentrate in the plaza.
At least one person with the Beret's claimed to have radicalized a thousand kids at these demonstrations. I would say that the first demonstration that the Beret's organized inspired students, but by taking the initiative, they (the students) took the steps towards radicalization. It was the Beret's that cut off this process of radicalization. They did this by taking on a leadership role and directing the activities of the students, rather than letting them, think about, discuss, and experiment with their own activities. Revolution is a process of empowerment, creativity and self-directed activity, not replication of the leader/follower roles of this society. It is fine to organize demonstrations, but the role of facilitation should end there. It is instigation to revolt, not trying to control people that will feed possibilities of insurrection.
4) In Santa Cruz on May Day, at the San Lorenzo park. A racist environmentalist carried a sign "Redwoods or Open Borders?" Despite this guy's poor analysis, some Brown Beret's attempted to pacify people who were harassing him upon his request, so as not to "distract from the speakers." Aside from the fact that the speakers were monotonous, it's disappointing to see not just tolerance but defense of people like this man.
5) The police told the Brown Beret's to control and clear out the pedestrian bridge at San Lorenzo Park on May 1st because there were "too many" people on the bridge. The Beret's then proceeded to thin out the crowd.
The fact that Beret's would rather tolerate the racist with the sign then cause a stir, says a lot about those organizers politics. It seems like they've swallowed some liberal-hippy notions about how we should "all just get along."
Personally, I'm pretty discouraged with the same old rhetoric, boring marches, and drawn-out rallies. Is it any wonder that people started to leave shortly after they reached San Lorenzo Park? People will stay and involve themselves in activities that they consider relevant. Chanting "Si se puede" in the park isn't very interesting or relevant.
I understand that not everyone there is interested in social conflict and that this event may not be the preferred moment for that activity for some people. But I am critiquing the Beret's roles as revolutionaries. If you want revolution, you cannot act against it. All of these examples and the critiques that follow I'm arguing to be counter-revolutionary acts. If you want a self-organized society, you need to allow space for people to act as they see fit (as long as it doesn't impinge on you or your fiends), not herding people around or other authoritarian behaviors.
Some Thoughts on Beret's Taking Position Within City Government
"When you take on the function of providing social services (through charity and other offerings) - where the state has left off - you cease to be a counter-force to the system, but rather a buttress to reinforce it. By providing scraps for the exploited to survive on, you hold back the disorder of the marginalized and any subsequent insurgency."
I've heard a little about Beret's taking up various positions within the local political racket of Watsonville to try to influence political decisions in a more positive direction.
I agree with the Berets in Los Angeles (or was it San Diego?) who have chosen to reject the taking of political positions within government. By joining the bureaucracy, all radical content gets drained from ones aspirations. People get caught up in trying to get scraps from those who hold a hegemony on power. It becomes a game of trying to get more and more adherents to a cause (an abstraction) and to present oneself as a representative of "the people," in an attempt at finding band-aids on our gaping societal wound. If one accepts that we cannot join the power structure and that revolution is necessary, politics must be abandoned. Those who join the bureaucracy, are buried in it.
Graffiti Cleanup
The other thing I overheard was mention of graffiti cleanup. To me graffiti is important to encourage rather than discourage. It's a form of defiance, rejecting the sacredness of property. It is a sign on the facade of stability that all is not well.
Sneaking around at night, avoiding the police, climbing into the oddest places to scrawl one's tag. There's a lot in that that is subversive, even if the message written isn't "radical." And certainly it encompasses using skills we all could use more practice in.
Graffiti clean-up seems more like a respect for yuppy values and a dis to taggers. There's a lot to be pissed about and defiance is something to encourage, not cover up.
Closing
I think it is good that the Beret's initiated demonstrations to the immigration bill, not in an attempt to run after specific pieces of legislation, but to increase the social clash and move towards a more conflictual relationship with the defenders of the social order. I'm opposed to the role that the Beret's took in directing and controlling crowds. Anyone who is claiming authority and telling others what to do is a cop, whether they have a brown band on their arm or a badge on their chest.
All these various examples of roles taken (acting as representatives of struggle, controlling demonstrations, negotiating with those in power, etc.) are all examples of vanguardist political methods of the 60's which failed to produce a better world. The hierarchical relationships are still maintained within these models.
By writing this it is a confirmation that I see the Brown Beret's as a very significant grass-roots group that has a lot of potential. I've appreciated the "Youth and Power" events, the various attempts at spreading awareness about important issues, and the attentiveness that Beret's have given to issues that emanate from their communities. The Beret's I've met tended to be sincere and dedicated. I can't think of a public organization within Santa Cruz County that is as influential as the Beret's.
I want to reiterate that my criticism is meant as a tool, for you to consider, reflect upon, and take what you think is of value. I'm not attempting to personally attack. I offer these words because I care about what the Beret's do with their efforts, but I don't think the means sometimes used are congruent with what I think are the intended ends. I offer my assessment of the situation with the intention of provoking thought and bringing up contradictions that may prevent individuals working with the Beret's from actualizing their goals. I'd be interested in discussing this further with any of those who are part of the Brown Beret's. Responses are appreciated.
"Brian Carwell"
An invisible insurgent
For more information:
http://www.brownberets.info/welcome/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
1. The open letter comes from someone who has never struggled with us and comes from a racist, elitist perspective that aims to tell activists of color how they should organize within their own communities. Rather than being an ally, he aims to "instruct" mostly Latino activists how they organize after they have fought for social change for over 12 hard years (including 513 years of resisiting colonialism) and the writer has done absolutely nothing in or for our communities. The perspective is completely misinformed, divisive and ignorant of our struggle.
2. Our struggle is not a rhetorical one about what is change or "revolution," it is about making change HAPPEN in our communities. It is about improving poor peoples' lives through action and mobilizing masses of people into action such as those seen with thousands upon thousands marching throughout the region. Never has communities like Watsonville seen such political action by working people. Our involvement in marches has resulted in the most organized and powerful demonstrations seen in Santa Cruz County history and we will continue to do so.
3. We are involved in a wide range community issues including reducing gang violence that has taken the lives of so many of our local youth and empowering our neighborhoods. It is our children who are being killed or incarcerated in mass. Gang violence or gang graffiti are not revolutionary when it is being used as a tool of self-destruction within our own communities.
4. Someone who has never struggled with the Latino community and is ignorant of our local plight can come to some seriously flawed conclusions like those written above. But we will not be deterred and we will continue to struggle and demand change for the betterment of our people.
2. Our struggle is not a rhetorical one about what is change or "revolution," it is about making change HAPPEN in our communities. It is about improving poor peoples' lives through action and mobilizing masses of people into action such as those seen with thousands upon thousands marching throughout the region. Never has communities like Watsonville seen such political action by working people. Our involvement in marches has resulted in the most organized and powerful demonstrations seen in Santa Cruz County history and we will continue to do so.
3. We are involved in a wide range community issues including reducing gang violence that has taken the lives of so many of our local youth and empowering our neighborhoods. It is our children who are being killed or incarcerated in mass. Gang violence or gang graffiti are not revolutionary when it is being used as a tool of self-destruction within our own communities.
4. Someone who has never struggled with the Latino community and is ignorant of our local plight can come to some seriously flawed conclusions like those written above. But we will not be deterred and we will continue to struggle and demand change for the betterment of our people.
I am surprised to say that I am proud of the Brown Berets and the stand they have taken against the blind leftist garbage that rules over Santa Cruz. If the Brown Berets can keep kids out of gangs and from vandalizing the city, then they are worthy of some support, even from right-leaning individuals like myself. At the end of the day, your organization or ideology is measured by what you accomplish. Brian should really think about that before he writes another article for Indymedia.
The ironic thing about ararchists like Brian, when they denounce groups for being "vanguardist" and hierarchical in trying to lead the movement, it really just means that they wish it was them that would lead the movement. If you bothered to talk to a proletarian, or organize among them, you would realize that the people want leadership. And they don't want the kind of anarchist self-satisfying "unleadership" which thinks that a great victory has been won when a group of middle class kids -- with no connection to the people -- breaks a window.
Now that that's out of the way... the brown berets should think about the concept of reform vs. revolution instead of simply rejecting this dude's criticism because you think he's white and hasn't done work in the community. Think about what the Brown Berets and the Panthers originally stood for. They were revolutionaries, organizing for revolution -- not social workers!
Now that that's out of the way... the brown berets should think about the concept of reform vs. revolution instead of simply rejecting this dude's criticism because you think he's white and hasn't done work in the community. Think about what the Brown Berets and the Panthers originally stood for. They were revolutionaries, organizing for revolution -- not social workers!
The "open letter" critique goes after the organization...the collective and what we do. As individuals the Brown Berets (and it's allies) are diverse politically, culturally, economically, and now...geographically. Please don't pit one region against another for your own opportunistic venture into "anti-political" cyberspace. As individuals, all comradres are part of other projects, circles, communities.
When organizing as a collective, as part of a mass movement rolling along, the reality of the situation becomes many people, young and old who have not agreed to face down with riot cops/ who have not the privelge of studying and pondering a very intelligent rational for doing so. If this WAS the deal, they wouldn't come out...it wouldn't be their movement at this time. And then this movement would look very very different right now...it would look like something that is already happening. And it brings on a police state and gives 2,000 riot cops reason to "post up" behind Fire Station # 2 in downtown Watsonville.
What we are doing is revolutionary. According to my damn definition. What ever someones weapon, at whenever the appropriate time...moving towards changing the system, is revolution. In a little bit more time our jovenes will do the kind of self organizing you profess to be the natural consequence of your reccommended action. I am counting on it...
My question to the author is; if you were a part of this collective, what would you do in our position? How would you make your theory into our reality? Right now.
When organizing as a collective, as part of a mass movement rolling along, the reality of the situation becomes many people, young and old who have not agreed to face down with riot cops/ who have not the privelge of studying and pondering a very intelligent rational for doing so. If this WAS the deal, they wouldn't come out...it wouldn't be their movement at this time. And then this movement would look very very different right now...it would look like something that is already happening. And it brings on a police state and gives 2,000 riot cops reason to "post up" behind Fire Station # 2 in downtown Watsonville.
What we are doing is revolutionary. According to my damn definition. What ever someones weapon, at whenever the appropriate time...moving towards changing the system, is revolution. In a little bit more time our jovenes will do the kind of self organizing you profess to be the natural consequence of your reccommended action. I am counting on it...
My question to the author is; if you were a part of this collective, what would you do in our position? How would you make your theory into our reality? Right now.
Regardless of whether I agree or disagree w/their actions, you presumably as a gabacho are in no position to tell the Brown Berets who many come from nations who have been here far longer than yours, by thousands of years, to tell them how "run ship." Is this another case of the white left, anarchists attempting to throw direction at xikan@s?
You speak of how the Berets have directed the marchas --well considering we had village vendido idiots like SEIU and VOLUNTARIOS DE LA COMUNIDAD policing the show in San Jose, I'd rather much see faces like the Berets despite the fact that they wish to unify with certain organizations that DO ally themselves w/these pendejos and commit likewise atrocities towards our gente, but that's another story... Overall, it might've been more refreshing... no creen? Like it or not, the direction needs to come from OUR people and under OUR terms!
HOWEVER!
As for dealing w/the pigs, as a mexihcah in struggle, I wouldn't have chosen to pay the ~$1000 fine to the pigs (from what I understood occurred some time ago), nor would I have chosen to oblige to any of their wishes. That's why it's called struggle. Coyotl Tezcatlipoca didn't back down when he got harrassed by that awful beast Mansoor and his horde of pigs down south, neither did Martin Rodriguez when it came to trumped up charges that were thrown at him here in this county.
Si se puede is a mighty stale, open-ended chant, no question. And no, working with politicos is a gargantuan fallacy in and of itself.
I would've hoped that the Berets were discouraging the use of white t-shirts, american flags....? Negotiating w/the pigs... hmm, I'd probably say not, eh?
I would hoped that the Berets would've told they racist enviro guy to get the fuck on, if in fact they didn't want a diversion...?
I would hope that if these things didn't come about and that if in fact are trying to become passive and complacent, that the groups WHO ARE DOWN and that have played at their Youth and Power events, such as Cihuatl Tonali and Immortal Technique are aware? Otherwise, then what is all this talk of resistance and revolution? Revolution is a revolution IS A REVOLUTION!
In the words of Paquita la del Barrio: "???Me estas oyendo, inutil????"
A known, respectable elder on the medicine path (also part of the movimiento for over 40 years) said the other day that it was his impression (mind you, an IMPRESSION, and only that) that the Berets nowadays hid behind computers, and that no action was being done, per se. Should I listen to this elder at face value?
Yes we need a revolution, though because we, me, you are over THIS particular continent, it needs to be under the direction of the original inhabitants of this sacred land. Revolution----->indigenous sovereignty!!! Or did you forget that you're standing over OHLONE land?
You speak of how the Berets have directed the marchas --well considering we had village vendido idiots like SEIU and VOLUNTARIOS DE LA COMUNIDAD policing the show in San Jose, I'd rather much see faces like the Berets despite the fact that they wish to unify with certain organizations that DO ally themselves w/these pendejos and commit likewise atrocities towards our gente, but that's another story... Overall, it might've been more refreshing... no creen? Like it or not, the direction needs to come from OUR people and under OUR terms!
HOWEVER!
As for dealing w/the pigs, as a mexihcah in struggle, I wouldn't have chosen to pay the ~$1000 fine to the pigs (from what I understood occurred some time ago), nor would I have chosen to oblige to any of their wishes. That's why it's called struggle. Coyotl Tezcatlipoca didn't back down when he got harrassed by that awful beast Mansoor and his horde of pigs down south, neither did Martin Rodriguez when it came to trumped up charges that were thrown at him here in this county.
Si se puede is a mighty stale, open-ended chant, no question. And no, working with politicos is a gargantuan fallacy in and of itself.
I would've hoped that the Berets were discouraging the use of white t-shirts, american flags....? Negotiating w/the pigs... hmm, I'd probably say not, eh?
I would hoped that the Berets would've told they racist enviro guy to get the fuck on, if in fact they didn't want a diversion...?
I would hope that if these things didn't come about and that if in fact are trying to become passive and complacent, that the groups WHO ARE DOWN and that have played at their Youth and Power events, such as Cihuatl Tonali and Immortal Technique are aware? Otherwise, then what is all this talk of resistance and revolution? Revolution is a revolution IS A REVOLUTION!
In the words of Paquita la del Barrio: "???Me estas oyendo, inutil????"
A known, respectable elder on the medicine path (also part of the movimiento for over 40 years) said the other day that it was his impression (mind you, an IMPRESSION, and only that) that the Berets nowadays hid behind computers, and that no action was being done, per se. Should I listen to this elder at face value?
Yes we need a revolution, though because we, me, you are over THIS particular continent, it needs to be under the direction of the original inhabitants of this sacred land. Revolution----->indigenous sovereignty!!! Or did you forget that you're standing over OHLONE land?
"The police told the Brown Beret's to control and clear out the pedestrian bridge at San Lorenzo Park on May 1st because there were "too many" people on the bridge. The Beret's then proceeded to thin out the crowd. "
So the police asked them to have some folks move off the bridge, what’s the big deal? Sounds like a reasonable request to me, and thankfully the Brown Berets took responsibility for a march they were sponsoring. Some folks on the left have got it stuck in their heads that if you ever work with your local community police department, you are somehow a fascist. Sorry to break this to you, but the police are a necessity at ANY event that gathers large groups of people in one place. The safety of our community trumps some leftist ideologues.
So the police asked them to have some folks move off the bridge, what’s the big deal? Sounds like a reasonable request to me, and thankfully the Brown Berets took responsibility for a march they were sponsoring. Some folks on the left have got it stuck in their heads that if you ever work with your local community police department, you are somehow a fascist. Sorry to break this to you, but the police are a necessity at ANY event that gathers large groups of people in one place. The safety of our community trumps some leftist ideologues.
“Regardless of whether I agree or disagree w/their actions, you presumably as a gabacho are in no position to tell the Brown Berets who many come from nations who have been here far longer than yours, by thousands of years, to tell them how "run ship."
I don’t agree with this assertion, but I do think that it has some validity. No group, regardless of its ethnic make up, is beyond criticism. I think we have to stop talking about who was “here first”, and start talking about making the lives of migrant laborers better. Isn’t that the point of the recent marches?
I do think Brian has some interesting ideas, but I completely disagree with him on almost every point. Rather than trying to argue that some individuals have a right to comment on an issue and some do not, let’s talk about what will bring about beneficial results. This nation can not welcome folks from down south with jobs and then turn around and act like they are criminals for taking such work. That should be the issue we really drive home, not lots of silly rhetoric.
I don’t agree with this assertion, but I do think that it has some validity. No group, regardless of its ethnic make up, is beyond criticism. I think we have to stop talking about who was “here first”, and start talking about making the lives of migrant laborers better. Isn’t that the point of the recent marches?
I do think Brian has some interesting ideas, but I completely disagree with him on almost every point. Rather than trying to argue that some individuals have a right to comment on an issue and some do not, let’s talk about what will bring about beneficial results. This nation can not welcome folks from down south with jobs and then turn around and act like they are criminals for taking such work. That should be the issue we really drive home, not lots of silly rhetoric.
I will not hide behind a screename to say what I have to say.
1. Oscar G., we don't need your sympathy. Your "right-leaning politics" and stance is the very thing we are fighting against. Rest assured, we do not negotiate with cops. You can leave now.
2. I will not sit here and explain the reason behind our actions. We are warriors in the streets of OUR COMMUNITY, and so far, the people who have criticized the Berets are NOT from Watsonville. We are not the "California Brown Berets", we are not the "Santa Cruz County Brown Berets", and we are not the "Northern Califas Brown Berets." We are the Watsonville Brown Berets and serve OUR comunidad the best way we think is possible.
3. Our attention is in the real struggle (now): dealing with police brutality, dealing with a fucked up school system, dealing with violence within our people, and dealing with these politicos to serve our comunidad. By not paying the $1000 (which I would have been taken to court and paid anyway), our attention would have been elsewhere and not in these issues.
4. Ultimately, I share many ideals which have been pointed out about revolution and freedom. But "revolution" doesn't come from one day to the other. If any person was to come to the crowds marching on May 1st (OUR gente) with the message of "fuck the police, we will not obey, revolution!" they would have laughed at us. By making ourselves visible and having the opportunity to get on the mic and speak to our true community, whether in a march or in a Youth & Power, we are slowly trying to plant the seed of revolution. The ones we are aiming towards are the younger warriors.
With that said, I hope that all future criticisms of the Berets are handled in a professional manner by sitting with us and dialoguing. We will always take into consideration everything discussed and will never turn anyone away. Sister, I know there is a junta pending, we will get back to you on that. If any other person it too coward to speak up, then cease from making comments behind a computer. You all know where and when to find us.
Al rato,
Ramiro
1. Oscar G., we don't need your sympathy. Your "right-leaning politics" and stance is the very thing we are fighting against. Rest assured, we do not negotiate with cops. You can leave now.
2. I will not sit here and explain the reason behind our actions. We are warriors in the streets of OUR COMMUNITY, and so far, the people who have criticized the Berets are NOT from Watsonville. We are not the "California Brown Berets", we are not the "Santa Cruz County Brown Berets", and we are not the "Northern Califas Brown Berets." We are the Watsonville Brown Berets and serve OUR comunidad the best way we think is possible.
3. Our attention is in the real struggle (now): dealing with police brutality, dealing with a fucked up school system, dealing with violence within our people, and dealing with these politicos to serve our comunidad. By not paying the $1000 (which I would have been taken to court and paid anyway), our attention would have been elsewhere and not in these issues.
4. Ultimately, I share many ideals which have been pointed out about revolution and freedom. But "revolution" doesn't come from one day to the other. If any person was to come to the crowds marching on May 1st (OUR gente) with the message of "fuck the police, we will not obey, revolution!" they would have laughed at us. By making ourselves visible and having the opportunity to get on the mic and speak to our true community, whether in a march or in a Youth & Power, we are slowly trying to plant the seed of revolution. The ones we are aiming towards are the younger warriors.
With that said, I hope that all future criticisms of the Berets are handled in a professional manner by sitting with us and dialoguing. We will always take into consideration everything discussed and will never turn anyone away. Sister, I know there is a junta pending, we will get back to you on that. If any other person it too coward to speak up, then cease from making comments behind a computer. You all know where and when to find us.
Al rato,
Ramiro
“1. Oscar G., we don't need your sympathy. Your "right-leaning politics" and stance is the very thing we are fighting against. Rest assured, we do not negotiate with cops. You can leave now.”
I don’t hid behind a screen name wither. And frankly, I could care less what you think personally. Since I support the rights of illegal workers here in the States, I am sad they you do not share a similar view. That is fine; you have a right to linger in your own ideological obscurity. You don’t need my opinion, and I don’t need yours. Just have to agree to disagree I guess. I don’t belong to groups like the Brown Berets simply because there are folks like you who restrict what is acceptable to say.
You don’t negotiate with cops? What the hell does that even mean? Clearly, the Brown Berets worked along side the police department to make sure the events on Monday went smoothly. If you have a problem with that, well, that’s too bad.
I don’t hid behind a screen name wither. And frankly, I could care less what you think personally. Since I support the rights of illegal workers here in the States, I am sad they you do not share a similar view. That is fine; you have a right to linger in your own ideological obscurity. You don’t need my opinion, and I don’t need yours. Just have to agree to disagree I guess. I don’t belong to groups like the Brown Berets simply because there are folks like you who restrict what is acceptable to say.
You don’t negotiate with cops? What the hell does that even mean? Clearly, the Brown Berets worked along side the police department to make sure the events on Monday went smoothly. If you have a problem with that, well, that’s too bad.
2. “I will not sit here and explain the reason behind our actions.”
That is right, no one ask questions of the Brown Berets! If you are not capable of explaining your actions, then you probably shouldn’t be doing them in the first place. I have no problem with the Brown Berets taking a position of leadership, but if you think you are excused from explaining your positions then you are living in a fantasy world.
People like Soldado are not helping immigrant workers with his rhetoric. I hope most of the folks out there can do a better job than he is.
That is right, no one ask questions of the Brown Berets! If you are not capable of explaining your actions, then you probably shouldn’t be doing them in the first place. I have no problem with the Brown Berets taking a position of leadership, but if you think you are excused from explaining your positions then you are living in a fantasy world.
People like Soldado are not helping immigrant workers with his rhetoric. I hope most of the folks out there can do a better job than he is.
1. we are NOT, not, not, not, nada, nil, zip, zilch, amo IMMIGRANTS. By definition, how the hell can anyone be an immigrant if he or she is in her OWN HOME ALREADY??? These borders and the current U.S. regime -que vayan a bolar!
2. it DOES matter as to who was "here first."
in 1492, we were told to go away (and eventually killed) DISEASE, MASSACRES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT
in 1519, we were told to go away (and eventually killed) DISEASE, MASSACRES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT
in 1776, we were told to go away (and yes, eventually killed) DISEASE, MASSACRES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT
in 1848, we were told to go away (and still eventually killed) DISEASE, MASSACRES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT, LYNCHINGS
in 2006 we are still being told to go away (and yes still killed) DISEASE, MASSACRES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT, LYNCHINGS, AND NOW A FUCKING BORDER FENCE!
2. it DOES matter as to who was "here first."
in 1492, we were told to go away (and eventually killed) DISEASE, MASSACRES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT
in 1519, we were told to go away (and eventually killed) DISEASE, MASSACRES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT
in 1776, we were told to go away (and yes, eventually killed) DISEASE, MASSACRES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT
in 1848, we were told to go away (and still eventually killed) DISEASE, MASSACRES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT, LYNCHINGS
in 2006 we are still being told to go away (and yes still killed) DISEASE, MASSACRES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT, LYNCHINGS, AND NOW A FUCKING BORDER FENCE!
I understand that the issue of who was “here first” is important to you. But just because it is important to you, does not mean that using it at these protests and such helps the cause of migrant labor. You can claim up and down that they are exactly where they should be, but we do live in a nation-state that has rules regarding citizenship. I agree that some of those rules are hardly fair nor correct. But if you think that arguing that such and such people were here first is going to get us anywhere, then you are mistaken.
The letter by "Brian Carwell" is simply on attack piece against one of the most powerful organizations for youth of color in the Monterey Bay. I have seen time and time again that the Berets have endured the brunt of attacks by local right wing conservatives, racists, and anti-immigrants. The attack above is in that tradition, but attempts to create smoke screen by saying it is a "tool for you to consider." It seems like it is no coincidence that this attack piece came out only a day after the largest pro-immigrant demonstrations in Santa Cruz County and throughout the country.
The misinformed writer of the "open letter" attack piece very condescendingly tells Latino activists how they should organize their own communities when this white so-called "anarchist" has never done anything for our children, our farmworkers, our parents, our poor, our immigrants, our suffering, or for our struggle.
I agree that even if one professes to be an activist, he or she still can carry their own racism and their elitism, and demand that activists of color do things their way. Well those days are over and it is activists of color who will decide and take action for themselves about how they know best to make change within their communities. They don't need a white Santa Cruz co-called "anarchist" trying to school them about their own struggle which he obviously knows nothing about.
I have seen the Berets build coalitions with people from many different backgrounds, geographical regions, ages, sexual orientations, religions and races. They are a powerful force for change and have been on the forefront in addressing tough issues poverty, violence, police abuse, educational empowerment, unemployment, increasing political activism- to name a few.
But it is despicable when someone completely ignorant of their struggle then goes and tries to dictate what they should do and attacks them with false information, which his open letter is saturated with. Ignorance made him look like a complete fool this time.
/
The misinformed writer of the "open letter" attack piece very condescendingly tells Latino activists how they should organize their own communities when this white so-called "anarchist" has never done anything for our children, our farmworkers, our parents, our poor, our immigrants, our suffering, or for our struggle.
I agree that even if one professes to be an activist, he or she still can carry their own racism and their elitism, and demand that activists of color do things their way. Well those days are over and it is activists of color who will decide and take action for themselves about how they know best to make change within their communities. They don't need a white Santa Cruz co-called "anarchist" trying to school them about their own struggle which he obviously knows nothing about.
I have seen the Berets build coalitions with people from many different backgrounds, geographical regions, ages, sexual orientations, religions and races. They are a powerful force for change and have been on the forefront in addressing tough issues poverty, violence, police abuse, educational empowerment, unemployment, increasing political activism- to name a few.
But it is despicable when someone completely ignorant of their struggle then goes and tries to dictate what they should do and attacks them with false information, which his open letter is saturated with. Ignorance made him look like a complete fool this time.
/
"""The following is a letter I emailed to the Brown Beret's to address specific problems I've had with their actions. It is meant to be a starting point in a constructive dialogue."""
WRONG. The correct starting point for any kind of constructive dialogue of this sort would be to ask why should the Brown Berets care about what your specific problems with their actions are?
This is like some random kid writing an open letter to the head coach of the Oakland Raiders about what his specific problems are with the Radiers offense. You are overestimating your own importance, here, MR Carwell.
A real problem with "the left" is that it is full of people like you who think nothing of sitting down to pen a letter to someone/a group you don't know, have never worked with, only observed from afar, full of criticisms and advice. Of course, with the best of intentions, those being to get your two cents in without paying your dues or knowing the score, to exert an influence from the armchair in your living room, to feel like, with a minor assertion of entitlement and with a brief tapping of fingers on a keyboard, youve gently nudged the revolutionaries of the world one step closer to acting in concert with your desired operating procedure of "the right way".
Damn, man, you've got a lot of nerve. If you wanted to criticize the BB and tell them to fuck off, because they insulted you, or to slag them for being sellouts or racists or something else, at least that would be honest (tho i guess not "constructive" dialogue). This piece reeks of privelege and entitlement and disingenuity.
WRONG. The correct starting point for any kind of constructive dialogue of this sort would be to ask why should the Brown Berets care about what your specific problems with their actions are?
This is like some random kid writing an open letter to the head coach of the Oakland Raiders about what his specific problems are with the Radiers offense. You are overestimating your own importance, here, MR Carwell.
A real problem with "the left" is that it is full of people like you who think nothing of sitting down to pen a letter to someone/a group you don't know, have never worked with, only observed from afar, full of criticisms and advice. Of course, with the best of intentions, those being to get your two cents in without paying your dues or knowing the score, to exert an influence from the armchair in your living room, to feel like, with a minor assertion of entitlement and with a brief tapping of fingers on a keyboard, youve gently nudged the revolutionaries of the world one step closer to acting in concert with your desired operating procedure of "the right way".
Damn, man, you've got a lot of nerve. If you wanted to criticize the BB and tell them to fuck off, because they insulted you, or to slag them for being sellouts or racists or something else, at least that would be honest (tho i guess not "constructive" dialogue). This piece reeks of privelege and entitlement and disingenuity.
One cannot separate the community from political or direct action. Public protest and demonstrations are an integral part to the road of liberation, justice and dignity. When organizing marches, rallies and demonstration it is imperative to take all members of our community into consideration. If marches constituted only privileged middle class late teenage white kids, then maybe we could risk chaos and mass arrest. The next day our parents will be bailing us our or calling the family lawyer. That is not reality for poor people of color. Harassment, arrest and incarceration are already an everyday occurrence in our barrios and ghettoes. Latinos and Blacks make up over 65% of the population in CA prison. It is our duty to keep our people out! In addition, families, including children and elders, attended many of the recent marches. Their safety and right to demonstrate was our first and foremost priority. In addition, not only did our responsibility include securing our people but also minimizing tensions between rival gang members. All our decisions were bases on what our community wanted, that is the only entity we respond to.
Understanding that our community has been historically marginalized and oppressed it is imperative to utilize all tools at our disposal including grassroots local political participation. White rich conservative land owners/ growers have historically dominated the decision making process in rural communities like Watsonville. At the same time our schools were in dilapidated conditions, graduation rates were at 50%, unemployment and housing opportunities were nil, and poverty kept us powerless. Their time is over and our people will be treated with dignity while having the right to a rich education. We must learn to agitate at all levels. Malcolm X once said" By any means necessary," many still don’t get what that means.
Finally, the author of this idiotic letter identified himself, that is the reason we know he is white middle class blond and privileged with too many zines in his head and way too much time on his hands. The manner in which he used to articulate his opinions is both disrespectful and condescending. If he truly cared about our organization or community he would have had the courage to meet in person. Our activism and work in our community will never be dominated by impracticable theory (most written by Europeans) or ideology. Like the Zapatistas said, “ We don’t need you to come tell us how to liberate ourselves, we have been resisting you for over 514 Years.”
Understanding that our community has been historically marginalized and oppressed it is imperative to utilize all tools at our disposal including grassroots local political participation. White rich conservative land owners/ growers have historically dominated the decision making process in rural communities like Watsonville. At the same time our schools were in dilapidated conditions, graduation rates were at 50%, unemployment and housing opportunities were nil, and poverty kept us powerless. Their time is over and our people will be treated with dignity while having the right to a rich education. We must learn to agitate at all levels. Malcolm X once said" By any means necessary," many still don’t get what that means.
Finally, the author of this idiotic letter identified himself, that is the reason we know he is white middle class blond and privileged with too many zines in his head and way too much time on his hands. The manner in which he used to articulate his opinions is both disrespectful and condescending. If he truly cared about our organization or community he would have had the courage to meet in person. Our activism and work in our community will never be dominated by impracticable theory (most written by Europeans) or ideology. Like the Zapatistas said, “ We don’t need you to come tell us how to liberate ourselves, we have been resisting you for over 514 Years.”
Certainly, the Brown Berets have no "obligation" or "need" to listen to critiques from individuals like Brian. From what I've read, the accusation that he is a priveleged Santa Cruzan who isn't even a Beret is valid. But the refusal by many to even *consider* what he has said is quite disturbing; why are you so resistant to the ideas themselves? People have good reason to get pissed off by the letter and its writer, but as it's been written, why not actually think about those issues? It seems some people have gone beyond "Brown Pride" and become a bit arrogant.
A few thoughts about the counter-protester: while his message strongly conveyed xenophobia, racism, and nationalism, I actually talked to him. And though racism is of course deeply embedded in society, his ideas were not those of the Minutemen, the Neo-Nazis, etc. The counterprotester was not just a fascist using an environmental justification. He was an environmentalist who was "using" a psuedo-Nazi message to provoke thought (which I don't think really worked, 'cuz such a message provokes only emotion). But if you had talked to him, you might actually realize that he is a lot more complex than what one would first assume (i.e. "fucking Nazi pig"). And interestingly, while Brian dislikes this guy, his "Open Letter" is basically the same thing as the "Redwoods/Open Borders" sign, or this comment that I'm writing right now. It's the ideology-mongering of a priveleged Santa Cruzan and deserves to be called as such, but there are still a lot of things that should be considered.
One more thing, which is just more academic bullshit from me but still bears thought: this land was Ohlone land, not Aztec (which is by far the culture of the Brown Pride movement), and the "Mexicans" who lived here were the followers of conquistadors and missionaries. So while Brown People have every right to live here, the "Mexican" claim to this land is no better than the American one.
A few thoughts about the counter-protester: while his message strongly conveyed xenophobia, racism, and nationalism, I actually talked to him. And though racism is of course deeply embedded in society, his ideas were not those of the Minutemen, the Neo-Nazis, etc. The counterprotester was not just a fascist using an environmental justification. He was an environmentalist who was "using" a psuedo-Nazi message to provoke thought (which I don't think really worked, 'cuz such a message provokes only emotion). But if you had talked to him, you might actually realize that he is a lot more complex than what one would first assume (i.e. "fucking Nazi pig"). And interestingly, while Brian dislikes this guy, his "Open Letter" is basically the same thing as the "Redwoods/Open Borders" sign, or this comment that I'm writing right now. It's the ideology-mongering of a priveleged Santa Cruzan and deserves to be called as such, but there are still a lot of things that should be considered.
One more thing, which is just more academic bullshit from me but still bears thought: this land was Ohlone land, not Aztec (which is by far the culture of the Brown Pride movement), and the "Mexicans" who lived here were the followers of conquistadors and missionaries. So while Brown People have every right to live here, the "Mexican" claim to this land is no better than the American one.
Last time I checked, this eastern "Aztlan" belonged to the Comanche who were at war with Mexican seattlers.
I think it is hard to make the case that the west belongs to a specific group. (i.e. Aztec)
I think it is hard to make the case that the west belongs to a specific group. (i.e. Aztec)
There are several aspects of this “open letter” that I would like to address;
1. It is a consensus that the critique come from a white person that has only provoke a defensive stance, which is completely expected because this is a “white supremacist capitalist patriarchal society” to quote bell hooks. To critique an organization of color that has overturned its community’s disempowered stance to an empowering one is a big mistake especially considering the manner in which it was done, with an “open letter” and its posting on indybay. If the person really cared to build a constructive critique it would have been done in a professional manner. The fact that the person did not attend a Brown Beret meeting to address the issue in person only goes to show that this person has racist and stereotypical thoughts deeply embedded that they themselves do not realize. I advocate for the removal of this “open letter” since it has done nothing, but to create an “Us vs. Them” debate and is only creating tension and divisions.
2. I also have a critique from this white person. An incident occurred at the West Entrance of UCSC, which involved the police and possibly a citation of a white individual. This individual had a total disregard for our discontent of with his action after the police had reprimanded him several times and almost cited him once, but the people stuck by his side and the police let him go. After a total second total disregard not only for the people of color there, but also the undocumented immigrants protesting (which is the main reason for our being present) the individual was hauled away by the police, creating a division between the protestors. We were not there to fight the police, but to voice are discontent with the Anti-Undocumented Immigration bill and to support the undocumented immigrants present.
3. If you truly want to do the Brown Berets a favor please to do not critique us in such a manner as to post it on indybay.org, which has greater consequence than you may realize. If you truly want to help the Brown Berets look at the action of the white community that had a total lack of respect for our request. Only people of color have the right to critique themselves, in what you like or not is a “white supremacist capitalist patriarchal society.”
I commend the Brown Berets decisions and actions.
Gracias,
y
pAz
-inSURGEnte
1. It is a consensus that the critique come from a white person that has only provoke a defensive stance, which is completely expected because this is a “white supremacist capitalist patriarchal society” to quote bell hooks. To critique an organization of color that has overturned its community’s disempowered stance to an empowering one is a big mistake especially considering the manner in which it was done, with an “open letter” and its posting on indybay. If the person really cared to build a constructive critique it would have been done in a professional manner. The fact that the person did not attend a Brown Beret meeting to address the issue in person only goes to show that this person has racist and stereotypical thoughts deeply embedded that they themselves do not realize. I advocate for the removal of this “open letter” since it has done nothing, but to create an “Us vs. Them” debate and is only creating tension and divisions.
2. I also have a critique from this white person. An incident occurred at the West Entrance of UCSC, which involved the police and possibly a citation of a white individual. This individual had a total disregard for our discontent of with his action after the police had reprimanded him several times and almost cited him once, but the people stuck by his side and the police let him go. After a total second total disregard not only for the people of color there, but also the undocumented immigrants protesting (which is the main reason for our being present) the individual was hauled away by the police, creating a division between the protestors. We were not there to fight the police, but to voice are discontent with the Anti-Undocumented Immigration bill and to support the undocumented immigrants present.
3. If you truly want to do the Brown Berets a favor please to do not critique us in such a manner as to post it on indybay.org, which has greater consequence than you may realize. If you truly want to help the Brown Berets look at the action of the white community that had a total lack of respect for our request. Only people of color have the right to critique themselves, in what you like or not is a “white supremacist capitalist patriarchal society.”
I commend the Brown Berets decisions and actions.
Gracias,
y
pAz
-inSURGEnte
"The fact that the person did not attend a Brown Beret meeting to address the issue in person only goes to show that this person has racist and stereotypical thoughts deeply embedded that they themselves do not realize."
This is a pretty authoritarian dictate in a number of ways.
Are these posts really by Berets? I think unfortunately some of them produce a more hostile tone to accepting critique than even the examples that were initially given.
If I'm interested in revolution, I'm not going to be told to mind my own business when I see the same obvious shit happening over and over.
Fuck the flag.
This is a pretty authoritarian dictate in a number of ways.
Are these posts really by Berets? I think unfortunately some of them produce a more hostile tone to accepting critique than even the examples that were initially given.
If I'm interested in revolution, I'm not going to be told to mind my own business when I see the same obvious shit happening over and over.
Fuck the flag.
I keep hearing all this talk about who was here first and who 'owns' the land. Perhaps we should take a long and hard look at the concept of land ownership and property. It's all too easy to fall into the hypocracy and turn the argument into a disagreement over who gets control over the resource/commodity-- who gets to live a more comfortable life and who doesn't. Proudhon makes for an interesting read:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProProp.html
I also don't understand it when people start claiming 'brown pride' and begin to list off reasons why they are more entitled to some resource/commodity. We're all just people struggling to live decent lives. Don't let the solidarity and the human compassion only run to the edge of your small community. If you take on that point of view, you're no better than them.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProProp.html
I also don't understand it when people start claiming 'brown pride' and begin to list off reasons why they are more entitled to some resource/commodity. We're all just people struggling to live decent lives. Don't let the solidarity and the human compassion only run to the edge of your small community. If you take on that point of view, you're no better than them.
All i see is another white leftist telling an organization of color how to do its job. How well do you know this community and its struggles. How well do you really understand the difference between theory and real life. How much do you realize the daily struggle of immigrants doing what is neccesary to survive. You dont know shit, because if you did you would have never written this letter, you would have instead come and faced the organization and they would have had the constructive conversation that i personally would have liked instead of writing this letter and writing falicies that you have to idea about. Write a retraction or get this letter out of cyber space. Finnaly, come to discuss you thoughts with the organization or dont come at all.
Peace be with you all
Nahum
Peace be with you all
Nahum
My name is Marisol, I am a member of the Watsonville Brown Berets, and I would like to address a few things that have come up in this discussion.
In Brian's letter, he claimed that the Berets collaborated with the police before the second student walkout. That is incorrect. We collaborated with the students only so far as to ask them what they wanted us to do. They wanted us in certain areas in Watsonville: we were in those areas. We did not "convince" any students to go anywhere. We asked them what they wanted to do and made it very clear that we were not there to lead them, just to provide support. We have also indicated this extremely clearly to the police, the media, city officials, and anyone at all who claimed that the Brown Berets planned/coordinated/organized these walkouts. If you had attended any of our meetings, you would see that young members and guests are consistently encouraged to voice their opinions, criticisms, and ideas. When it's a Brown Beret action, we make the plans. When it's a youth or student action, we play a supporting role based on what they want from us. If they want us to keep violence from erupting between different gangs, we do that in non-authoritarian ways. If a Park Ranger says that a bridge is carrying too much weight and might collapse, we get people off of it. That is what happened in Santa Cruz, by the way. Witnesses said that they could feel the bridge shaking with the weight, and there were a lot of people underneath it. This was reported in our last meeting. I don't believe any of the above critics were in attendance.
2. We do accept criticism. We critique ourselves, and receive a great deal of criticism and commentary from all fronts. We are also a group of very diverse people who bring a variety of strengths, histories, and perspectives to the table. We don't have a mono-voice. I hate to disappoint our detractors, but there really is no way to pigeonhole the Berets. Right now I'm speaking as a Beret, but I would never say I am speaking for all Berets. They are more than capable of speaking for themselves. And if someone doesn't like the fact that a criticizer is the member of an "elite" class, they will let you know. One of the most irritating things about being a minority is that you are expected to represent everyone that has the same background, skin color, accent, or language as you. One of the reasons we are such an effective group is because we acknowledge and appreciate our individuals. If any of you came to our meetings, unless you were incredibly dim, you would've seen that. By the way, the Berets are multicultural, and the white members have as much of a right to voice their thoughts and ideas as anyone else. I'd say that's a bit of an improvement on society, wouldn't you?
Is this group perfect? No. We can always benefit from growth and self-analysis. Why don't you come and work with us (note: I said "work" not "ignorantly assume you know what our community is going through and how you can fix it, and us"?
Are we revolutionary enough to satisfy other people's tastes? What kind of meaningless question is that? We are the product of a community that has had enough of hopelessness, fear, violence, and exploitation. We exist because Watsonville wants us to exist. If anyone in the community that we serve (not the power structure) has a problem with what the Berets are doing, we have a responsibility to answer to them. I don't believe anyone in Watsonville has elected Brian or any other outsiders to speak in that role.
Therefore, although this has been a great opportunity to dialogue, I'm not particularly concerned if theorists think we are "revolutionary enough" for them. It's just not relevant.
Saludos,
Marisol Asselta
In Brian's letter, he claimed that the Berets collaborated with the police before the second student walkout. That is incorrect. We collaborated with the students only so far as to ask them what they wanted us to do. They wanted us in certain areas in Watsonville: we were in those areas. We did not "convince" any students to go anywhere. We asked them what they wanted to do and made it very clear that we were not there to lead them, just to provide support. We have also indicated this extremely clearly to the police, the media, city officials, and anyone at all who claimed that the Brown Berets planned/coordinated/organized these walkouts. If you had attended any of our meetings, you would see that young members and guests are consistently encouraged to voice their opinions, criticisms, and ideas. When it's a Brown Beret action, we make the plans. When it's a youth or student action, we play a supporting role based on what they want from us. If they want us to keep violence from erupting between different gangs, we do that in non-authoritarian ways. If a Park Ranger says that a bridge is carrying too much weight and might collapse, we get people off of it. That is what happened in Santa Cruz, by the way. Witnesses said that they could feel the bridge shaking with the weight, and there were a lot of people underneath it. This was reported in our last meeting. I don't believe any of the above critics were in attendance.
2. We do accept criticism. We critique ourselves, and receive a great deal of criticism and commentary from all fronts. We are also a group of very diverse people who bring a variety of strengths, histories, and perspectives to the table. We don't have a mono-voice. I hate to disappoint our detractors, but there really is no way to pigeonhole the Berets. Right now I'm speaking as a Beret, but I would never say I am speaking for all Berets. They are more than capable of speaking for themselves. And if someone doesn't like the fact that a criticizer is the member of an "elite" class, they will let you know. One of the most irritating things about being a minority is that you are expected to represent everyone that has the same background, skin color, accent, or language as you. One of the reasons we are such an effective group is because we acknowledge and appreciate our individuals. If any of you came to our meetings, unless you were incredibly dim, you would've seen that. By the way, the Berets are multicultural, and the white members have as much of a right to voice their thoughts and ideas as anyone else. I'd say that's a bit of an improvement on society, wouldn't you?
Is this group perfect? No. We can always benefit from growth and self-analysis. Why don't you come and work with us (note: I said "work" not "ignorantly assume you know what our community is going through and how you can fix it, and us"?
Are we revolutionary enough to satisfy other people's tastes? What kind of meaningless question is that? We are the product of a community that has had enough of hopelessness, fear, violence, and exploitation. We exist because Watsonville wants us to exist. If anyone in the community that we serve (not the power structure) has a problem with what the Berets are doing, we have a responsibility to answer to them. I don't believe anyone in Watsonville has elected Brian or any other outsiders to speak in that role.
Therefore, although this has been a great opportunity to dialogue, I'm not particularly concerned if theorists think we are "revolutionary enough" for them. It's just not relevant.
Saludos,
Marisol Asselta
Well said Marisol. I may not agree with some of the Brown Berets politics, but having a level minded approach as you have just demonstrated is commendable.
This is my second response to the Brown Beret's postings. If you did not see the previous postings and responses, read this first: http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/05/1820310.php
This is probably my final response. I've been largely disappointed by the discussion for the most part.
Many of those who had a strong negative reaction to what I wrote didn't address the CONTENT of what I was actually saying, but rather decided to try and discredit me because of assumptions about me (i.e. who I am, what I've done or haven't done, where I live, what age I am, etc.). This isn't offering an argument, it's avoidance of the issues brought up.
The response I most appreciated was from Marisol who actually did address some of what I was saying in a respectful way. After I respond to Marisol, I have a few responses to other comments.
Inaccuracies in "Open Letter"
by Marisol Friday, May. 05
"In Brian's letter, he claimed that the Berets collaborated with the police before the second student walkout. That is incorrect. We collaborated with the students only so far as to ask them what they wanted us to do. They wanted us in certain areas in Watsonville: we were in those areas. We did not "convince" any students to go anywhere. We asked them what they wanted to do and made it very clear that we were not there to lead them, just to provide support."
What I remember being told by a Beret was that the Beret's asked students where they were going to meet for the second walkout. Students had independently organized several meeting locations. Then the Beret's decided to send at least one Beret to the 30 or so spots that the students decided they would meet. I was told that the Beret's were there to convince the students to go to the plaza. [But your arguing that all of these groups that went to the plaza, all simultaneously had the same idea without the BB's influence? That the BB presented themselves as purely supportive? Based on what I was told, I'm not convinced.] I understood that this was done in order to reduce the chance of police brutality. The idea is that if there are several groups of students moving or converging in different parts of the city, the police would be afraid of this situation and would be more likely to attack students. So the Beret's job was to convince the students to converge in one location, so that the Beret's could prevent gang violence and maintain order. And consequently, if they Beret's failed at this, the Police would be there to back them up. This already being made simpler by having the students centralized in one location and thus easier to box in. The Beret that told me all this also said they called the police chief (via phone beforehand), the chief agreed to hold the police back if the Beret's controlled the demonstration and my understanding is that the BB did just that. It was explained that the Brown Beret's (BB) prevented fights and disbanded the crowd when there seemed to be an ensuing "gang conflict."
Maybe those working with the Beret's had different intentions or motivations? And maybe the way different BB's handled the situation varied? At the very least, it seems as though some of the Beret's had an agenda before approaching the student groups even if you (Marisol) were playing a strictly supportive role, and there is no doubt some level of dialogue or negotiation with the police took place.
"If they want us to keep violence from erupting between different gangs, we do that in non-authoritarian ways."
I'm curious about the methods used. What does that look like specifically?
"If a Park Ranger says that a bridge is carrying too much weight and might collapse, we get people off of it. That is what happened in Santa Cruz, by the way. Witnesses said that they could feel the bridge shaking with the weight, and there were a lot of people underneath it."
I understand your motivation and good intentions but that's not my point. The BB were talking to a cop (not a Park Ranger, unless they wear the same uniform - Park Rangers are just another type of cop anyway) who noticed the problem, then asked the Berets to deal with clearing people from the bridge. Is that correct? If it is, this is what I have to say:
Why are the Beret's doing the cops bidding? Why are they answering to the police? If the cop has a problem with people on the bridge, why isn't the cop trying to explain to people why they should leave if the cop's the one who noticed the problem? Here's what I think...
The Beret's are generally recognized as part of the exploited by the public. The police are outsiders and an occupying force. The police may piss people off if they try to force crowds around, because most poor people recognize them as the enemy. But if it's a Beret that's trying to move people, they're perceived as "revolutionary leaders" or community members or otherwise as one of us. The Beret's take on the function of the police but appear as one of our own.
I think it's fine to take initiative and take actions to protect people, like on the bridge. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm illustrating, is that there is a relation that the Brown Beret's have to the police. What that looks like from situation to situation may vary, but my point is that there is a certain level of cooperation and negotiation with the police. This is what offends me and it's what I'm opposed to. It is an insult that the Beret's are dialoguing/cooperating with those who beat, harass, and kill people in my circles as well as poor and marginalized communities everywhere.
"Why don't you come and work with us (note: I said "work" not "ignorantly assume you know what our community is going through and how you can fix it, and us"?"
I appreciate the offer, it's the only kind gesture I've gotten with all this. If i choose to work with Beret's it will be with individuals who i come to like and have a good relationship with, not with the organization as a whole. I'm not one for formalized meetings/process anyway.
I don't intend to come off as some know-it-all elitist. I think my ideas have foundation, even if I can't always express how I feel in words. If I were to act in a public capacity and people had specific criticisms of how my choices impacted them or the social dynamic, i would be interested in respectful dialogue. I assumed that the Beret's (who want revolution) are also interested in embracing criticism, which some seemingly don't. I'm attempting to maintain a respectful dialogue as much as is possible with the inadequacies of my written word over the internet. In that spirit, I'm pointing out certain roles and behaviors that concern me, because these actions do impact others who attend events organized by the Beret's. And if the Beret's do grow in influence and impact, I hope that this goes in a non-reformist and non-authoritarian direction. What you ultimately do is up to you. But your actions will make clear which side you're on and where you stand. I don't claim to have all the solutions, but I can recognize specific problems.
"We exist because Watsonville wants us to exist. If anyone in the community that we serve (not the power structure) has a problem with what the Berets are doing, we have a responsibility to answer to them. I don't believe anyone in Watsonville has elected Brian or any other outsiders to speak in that role."
One problem (among many) with the left is the claim to represent a specific region or demographic. The Beret's can have the pretense that they "represent" the community of Watsonville or some other abstraction. I'm quite sure that not everyone in Watsonville is interested or supportive in what the Beret's are doing. I'm sure those in gangs getting their pieces covered aren't about to attend BB meetings. I don't think anyone from Watsonville has "elected" the Beret's to speak in their role except for BB themselves. You may have some support, but you represent no one but yourselves, despite claims to represent entire cities ("except for the power structure" - which I'm saying the Beret's are part of in some ways). The individuals in the Beret's are a false opposition to the power structure as long as they behave as authoritarians/cops.
"Therefore, although this has been a great opportunity to dialogue, I'm not particularly concerned if theorists think we are "revolutionary enough" for them. It's just not relevant."
You can label me a theorist but what are you trying to imply. Are you trying to say that I'm all words and no action. That the only thing i have to offer is useless criticism? Well, you don't know me. And while I'm not going to offer up some list of what I've done to prove my credentials, I have been involved in social struggle for a long time. Theory and action are not distinct categories for me. My ideas (theory) inform what I do. And my experiences of what i do change my ideas. There is an ongoing interplay which has lead me to the conclusions I currently carry.
I don't consider the Brown Beret's, as an organization, to be revolutionary. There may be radical content and revolutionary ideas within the individuals that make it up though.
If the criticism I brought up isn't relevant to you, then why did you respond?
Since you have no response to the criticisms regarding graffiti cleanup or the integration of the BB into the political racket, is it safe to assume that you have no issue with either of these?
I appreciate that you took the time to write. You clarified certain things that i didn't previously understand. Though our information on the situation may have some differences, I think what i said is still valid and I trust you'll consider those words for whatever their worth.
Saludos,
Brian
Responses to other individuals:
by: Mexicoyotl Tiahui!
"The open letter comes...a racist, elitist perspective..."
This response is based on the assumption that I'm white. If my opinions are invalidated because of my racial catagory, then I'll have to turn the question around and ask, who's being racist?
"Gang violence or gang graffiti are not revolutionary when it is being used as a tool of self-destruction within our own communities."
This is valid. I don't know the details of all the intricacies about what the effects of certain tags are. But do you? Are you indiscriminately covering up graffiti? And why don't people, who have a problem with the graffiti (if in fact they do) in their neighborhoods doing the cleaning? Rather than the BB choosing to go around and "clean up the community." The way I've heard it described, the BB go around and clean up all graffiti, not just in neighborhoods that specific BB members live in. It seemed pretty indiscriminant. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be interested to know how this is done?
The BB I've met have a pretty negative attitude towards gangs. I know there are a lot of problems with most gangs (hierarchy, sexism, hero worship, machisimo, drugs, etc.) but the reason gangs are popular is because they work for those people. Maybe not always, but gangs are an organic form of social organization, that offer a way of life, a way to survive for many. I suspect that this form of organization will become more common as our world increasingly disintegrates. While I can recognize problems with gangs I don't judge them as inherently evil. To me, they make a lot of sense.
by: militant sista II
"When organizing as a collective, as part of a mass movement rolling along, the reality of the situation becomes many people, young and old who have not agreed to face down with riot cops/ who have not the privelge of studying and pondering a very intelligent rational for doing so."
I'm not trying to organize the masses, which is one point where we diverge. Mayday in this context may not be the most opportune time for a riot, if your goal is to make immigrants look legitimate (not "criminals") to the american public and simultaneously show the relevance of immigrants to the economy by advocating the general strike, that's fine. But not everyone there has that as their goal. I'm sure most didn't come there to fight cops. But Mayday is not owned by any particular group [though as a side note, the day is held in remembrance of worker struggles, and specifically resulted from the persecution of 8 anarchists in Chicago]. And I did see the BB try to suppress the activities of individuals who didn't come there for reformist reasons.
"My question to the author is; if you were a part of this collective, what would you do in our position? How would you make your theory into our reality? Right now."
The list of what one could do is endless: community defense, self-sufficiency, attacks on those who threaten your way of life, etc. Like I said, organizing demonstrations is fine if that seems effective and relevant to you. The summary of how I'd change is that I wouldn't communicate with the cops and I wouldn't try to suppress those who seek conflict with the cops or others. Unless people you care about are being attacked, I'm not sure how it's any of your business to intervene.
"With that said, I hope that all future criticisms of the Berets are handled in a professional manner by sitting with us and dialoguing. We will always take into consideration everything discussed and will never turn anyone away... If any other person it too coward to speak up, then cease from making comments behind a computer. You all know where and when to find us."
I wrote the letter for the following reasons:
1) The Brown Berets are actively recruiting people throughout the area. Because of their recent actions, I have come to become increasingly weary of the group. I want others within and outside of the organization to hear these criticisms to help inform how people choose to relate to the group. I'm not interested in uncritical acceptance of the BB. This is why it was made into a public issue by posting it on indymedia.
2) I'm better at writing, than speaking.
3) I'm not interested in going to a meeting with the BB, because I don't know most of you. I don't know who are allies and who's opposition from my vantage point. Some of you definitely have closer relationships to the cops than to myself, this makes me a bit uneasy and I don't trust the group as a whole. Beyond being less articulate in person, i have a hard time believing I could have said all that I did in the letter without being interrupted, dismissed or worse based on the responses i got.
While initially I had some interest in dialoging with the BB, to sort out my concerns, my focus has shifted. I may communicate with Marisol or other individuals about these issues should we meet, in the future. But now I'm clear about my thoughts (which are generally not favorable to the BB) based on the responses I got. I feel that my concerns have been confirmed as true.
TEKOLOTE!
"In addition, not only did our responsibility include securing our people but also minimizing tensions between rival gang members. All our decisions were bases on what our community wanted, that is the only entity we respond to."
Are the gang members considered part of the community and did they want you intervening in their conflicts?
"Malcolm X once said" By any means necessary," many still don’t get what that means."
I do. It means that your going to get to some end by doing whatever it takes to get there. This is the basis for the ideology of authoritarians everywhere, from Stalin, to Hitler, or Castro, down to the "peace police" and cops at demonstrations. I'm saying that the ideology is shit. And that I'm not interested in achieving a better world by imposing my will on others among the exploited. I aim for my ends and means to be congruent. I'm not willing to do *anything* to get what i want, I have principles that guide my decisions. Some of those include a refusal to collaborate with the enemy (cops), not controlling people, etc.
"Finally, the author of this idiotic letter identified himself, that is the reason we know he is white middle class blond and privileged..."
That's interesting, because I'm not middle-class, nor blond. I have some privileges due to my genetic make-up and the context that I live in. I'm curious though why it would matter if I was blond? Would I then be less "ethnic" or "colored" and therefore more inherently oppressive? My race nor my hair have anything to do with the validity of my words. My point of view is an anti-authoritarian point of view. It is not a "European" point of view, as many people of different heritage share a similar analysis. Privilege is relative and isn't grounds for dismissal. Apparently, those who claim to know who I am, don't know what they're talking about.
"If he truly cared about our organization or community he would have had the courage to meet in person."
This one has been levied against me several times. I already explained my reasons for writing the letter over other options. This proposal is convenient for the BB because if I only meet them, the criticisms would stay within the meeting room. I'm just making it known what I've been told directly from Beret's, heard from friends, or personally observed. If the BB don't like this then maybe they need to change if they don't want to get criticism.
"Our activism and work in our community will never be dominated by impracticable theory (most written by Europeans) or ideology."
Not collaborating with cops or not telling others what to do is not "impracticable theory," it's a choice. And I don't think that it's a strictly European one, despite your attempts to make this a racial issue.
While the BB may add their own twist to things, as far as i can tell they use models of organizing from the sixties [the Black Panthers are an often cited influence], which have a primarily marxist (European) influence. While the origins of ones particular brand of organizing might be insightful, I'm trying to look at problems with these models in the hopes that more effective ones are found for those of us seeking liberation.
My conclusion is that my criticisms still stick. The criticisms make the BB look bad. This upsets those who are attempting to defend and recruit others into the organization. So I'm getting all sorts of rationalizations for objectionalable actions. I'm getting responses and insults about being a racist, a theorist, privileged or whatever. In the end I'm not impressed with the BB's conduct as a whole, despite the "professionalism" they advocate in these postings and on their website.
People will think for themselves about what's been said and come to their own conclusions.
for a world without cops and borders,
Brian
p.s. For the BB's that may have emailed me, I can't access my emails. So I can't respond. Sorry. Feel free to post your emails to me here... I might respond, but I don't know if I'll feel like putting more time into this.
"The piece-meal approach and the political need for categorization also leads the left to valorize people in terms of their membership in various oppressed and exploited groups, such as “workers”, “women”, “people of color”, “gays and lesbians” and so on. This categorization is the basis of identity politics. Identity politics is the particular form of false opposition in which oppressed people choose to identify with a particular social category through which their oppression is reinforced as a supposed act of defiance against their oppression. In fact, the continued identification with this social role limits the capacity of those who practice identity politics to analyze their situation in this society deeply and to act as individuals against their oppression. It thus guarantees the continuation of the social relationships that cause their oppression. But only as members of categories are these people useful as pawns in the political maneuverings of the left, because such social categories take on the role of pressure groups and power blocs within the democratic framework."
I also posted this on another discussion board.
I compiled some of those responses to share, they will follow this post.
This is probably my final response. I've been largely disappointed by the discussion for the most part.
Many of those who had a strong negative reaction to what I wrote didn't address the CONTENT of what I was actually saying, but rather decided to try and discredit me because of assumptions about me (i.e. who I am, what I've done or haven't done, where I live, what age I am, etc.). This isn't offering an argument, it's avoidance of the issues brought up.
The response I most appreciated was from Marisol who actually did address some of what I was saying in a respectful way. After I respond to Marisol, I have a few responses to other comments.
Inaccuracies in "Open Letter"
by Marisol Friday, May. 05
"In Brian's letter, he claimed that the Berets collaborated with the police before the second student walkout. That is incorrect. We collaborated with the students only so far as to ask them what they wanted us to do. They wanted us in certain areas in Watsonville: we were in those areas. We did not "convince" any students to go anywhere. We asked them what they wanted to do and made it very clear that we were not there to lead them, just to provide support."
What I remember being told by a Beret was that the Beret's asked students where they were going to meet for the second walkout. Students had independently organized several meeting locations. Then the Beret's decided to send at least one Beret to the 30 or so spots that the students decided they would meet. I was told that the Beret's were there to convince the students to go to the plaza. [But your arguing that all of these groups that went to the plaza, all simultaneously had the same idea without the BB's influence? That the BB presented themselves as purely supportive? Based on what I was told, I'm not convinced.] I understood that this was done in order to reduce the chance of police brutality. The idea is that if there are several groups of students moving or converging in different parts of the city, the police would be afraid of this situation and would be more likely to attack students. So the Beret's job was to convince the students to converge in one location, so that the Beret's could prevent gang violence and maintain order. And consequently, if they Beret's failed at this, the Police would be there to back them up. This already being made simpler by having the students centralized in one location and thus easier to box in. The Beret that told me all this also said they called the police chief (via phone beforehand), the chief agreed to hold the police back if the Beret's controlled the demonstration and my understanding is that the BB did just that. It was explained that the Brown Beret's (BB) prevented fights and disbanded the crowd when there seemed to be an ensuing "gang conflict."
Maybe those working with the Beret's had different intentions or motivations? And maybe the way different BB's handled the situation varied? At the very least, it seems as though some of the Beret's had an agenda before approaching the student groups even if you (Marisol) were playing a strictly supportive role, and there is no doubt some level of dialogue or negotiation with the police took place.
"If they want us to keep violence from erupting between different gangs, we do that in non-authoritarian ways."
I'm curious about the methods used. What does that look like specifically?
"If a Park Ranger says that a bridge is carrying too much weight and might collapse, we get people off of it. That is what happened in Santa Cruz, by the way. Witnesses said that they could feel the bridge shaking with the weight, and there were a lot of people underneath it."
I understand your motivation and good intentions but that's not my point. The BB were talking to a cop (not a Park Ranger, unless they wear the same uniform - Park Rangers are just another type of cop anyway) who noticed the problem, then asked the Berets to deal with clearing people from the bridge. Is that correct? If it is, this is what I have to say:
Why are the Beret's doing the cops bidding? Why are they answering to the police? If the cop has a problem with people on the bridge, why isn't the cop trying to explain to people why they should leave if the cop's the one who noticed the problem? Here's what I think...
The Beret's are generally recognized as part of the exploited by the public. The police are outsiders and an occupying force. The police may piss people off if they try to force crowds around, because most poor people recognize them as the enemy. But if it's a Beret that's trying to move people, they're perceived as "revolutionary leaders" or community members or otherwise as one of us. The Beret's take on the function of the police but appear as one of our own.
I think it's fine to take initiative and take actions to protect people, like on the bridge. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm illustrating, is that there is a relation that the Brown Beret's have to the police. What that looks like from situation to situation may vary, but my point is that there is a certain level of cooperation and negotiation with the police. This is what offends me and it's what I'm opposed to. It is an insult that the Beret's are dialoguing/cooperating with those who beat, harass, and kill people in my circles as well as poor and marginalized communities everywhere.
"Why don't you come and work with us (note: I said "work" not "ignorantly assume you know what our community is going through and how you can fix it, and us"?"
I appreciate the offer, it's the only kind gesture I've gotten with all this. If i choose to work with Beret's it will be with individuals who i come to like and have a good relationship with, not with the organization as a whole. I'm not one for formalized meetings/process anyway.
I don't intend to come off as some know-it-all elitist. I think my ideas have foundation, even if I can't always express how I feel in words. If I were to act in a public capacity and people had specific criticisms of how my choices impacted them or the social dynamic, i would be interested in respectful dialogue. I assumed that the Beret's (who want revolution) are also interested in embracing criticism, which some seemingly don't. I'm attempting to maintain a respectful dialogue as much as is possible with the inadequacies of my written word over the internet. In that spirit, I'm pointing out certain roles and behaviors that concern me, because these actions do impact others who attend events organized by the Beret's. And if the Beret's do grow in influence and impact, I hope that this goes in a non-reformist and non-authoritarian direction. What you ultimately do is up to you. But your actions will make clear which side you're on and where you stand. I don't claim to have all the solutions, but I can recognize specific problems.
"We exist because Watsonville wants us to exist. If anyone in the community that we serve (not the power structure) has a problem with what the Berets are doing, we have a responsibility to answer to them. I don't believe anyone in Watsonville has elected Brian or any other outsiders to speak in that role."
One problem (among many) with the left is the claim to represent a specific region or demographic. The Beret's can have the pretense that they "represent" the community of Watsonville or some other abstraction. I'm quite sure that not everyone in Watsonville is interested or supportive in what the Beret's are doing. I'm sure those in gangs getting their pieces covered aren't about to attend BB meetings. I don't think anyone from Watsonville has "elected" the Beret's to speak in their role except for BB themselves. You may have some support, but you represent no one but yourselves, despite claims to represent entire cities ("except for the power structure" - which I'm saying the Beret's are part of in some ways). The individuals in the Beret's are a false opposition to the power structure as long as they behave as authoritarians/cops.
"Therefore, although this has been a great opportunity to dialogue, I'm not particularly concerned if theorists think we are "revolutionary enough" for them. It's just not relevant."
You can label me a theorist but what are you trying to imply. Are you trying to say that I'm all words and no action. That the only thing i have to offer is useless criticism? Well, you don't know me. And while I'm not going to offer up some list of what I've done to prove my credentials, I have been involved in social struggle for a long time. Theory and action are not distinct categories for me. My ideas (theory) inform what I do. And my experiences of what i do change my ideas. There is an ongoing interplay which has lead me to the conclusions I currently carry.
I don't consider the Brown Beret's, as an organization, to be revolutionary. There may be radical content and revolutionary ideas within the individuals that make it up though.
If the criticism I brought up isn't relevant to you, then why did you respond?
Since you have no response to the criticisms regarding graffiti cleanup or the integration of the BB into the political racket, is it safe to assume that you have no issue with either of these?
I appreciate that you took the time to write. You clarified certain things that i didn't previously understand. Though our information on the situation may have some differences, I think what i said is still valid and I trust you'll consider those words for whatever their worth.
Saludos,
Brian
Responses to other individuals:
by: Mexicoyotl Tiahui!
"The open letter comes...a racist, elitist perspective..."
This response is based on the assumption that I'm white. If my opinions are invalidated because of my racial catagory, then I'll have to turn the question around and ask, who's being racist?
"Gang violence or gang graffiti are not revolutionary when it is being used as a tool of self-destruction within our own communities."
This is valid. I don't know the details of all the intricacies about what the effects of certain tags are. But do you? Are you indiscriminately covering up graffiti? And why don't people, who have a problem with the graffiti (if in fact they do) in their neighborhoods doing the cleaning? Rather than the BB choosing to go around and "clean up the community." The way I've heard it described, the BB go around and clean up all graffiti, not just in neighborhoods that specific BB members live in. It seemed pretty indiscriminant. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be interested to know how this is done?
The BB I've met have a pretty negative attitude towards gangs. I know there are a lot of problems with most gangs (hierarchy, sexism, hero worship, machisimo, drugs, etc.) but the reason gangs are popular is because they work for those people. Maybe not always, but gangs are an organic form of social organization, that offer a way of life, a way to survive for many. I suspect that this form of organization will become more common as our world increasingly disintegrates. While I can recognize problems with gangs I don't judge them as inherently evil. To me, they make a lot of sense.
by: militant sista II
"When organizing as a collective, as part of a mass movement rolling along, the reality of the situation becomes many people, young and old who have not agreed to face down with riot cops/ who have not the privelge of studying and pondering a very intelligent rational for doing so."
I'm not trying to organize the masses, which is one point where we diverge. Mayday in this context may not be the most opportune time for a riot, if your goal is to make immigrants look legitimate (not "criminals") to the american public and simultaneously show the relevance of immigrants to the economy by advocating the general strike, that's fine. But not everyone there has that as their goal. I'm sure most didn't come there to fight cops. But Mayday is not owned by any particular group [though as a side note, the day is held in remembrance of worker struggles, and specifically resulted from the persecution of 8 anarchists in Chicago]. And I did see the BB try to suppress the activities of individuals who didn't come there for reformist reasons.
"My question to the author is; if you were a part of this collective, what would you do in our position? How would you make your theory into our reality? Right now."
The list of what one could do is endless: community defense, self-sufficiency, attacks on those who threaten your way of life, etc. Like I said, organizing demonstrations is fine if that seems effective and relevant to you. The summary of how I'd change is that I wouldn't communicate with the cops and I wouldn't try to suppress those who seek conflict with the cops or others. Unless people you care about are being attacked, I'm not sure how it's any of your business to intervene.
"With that said, I hope that all future criticisms of the Berets are handled in a professional manner by sitting with us and dialoguing. We will always take into consideration everything discussed and will never turn anyone away... If any other person it too coward to speak up, then cease from making comments behind a computer. You all know where and when to find us."
I wrote the letter for the following reasons:
1) The Brown Berets are actively recruiting people throughout the area. Because of their recent actions, I have come to become increasingly weary of the group. I want others within and outside of the organization to hear these criticisms to help inform how people choose to relate to the group. I'm not interested in uncritical acceptance of the BB. This is why it was made into a public issue by posting it on indymedia.
2) I'm better at writing, than speaking.
3) I'm not interested in going to a meeting with the BB, because I don't know most of you. I don't know who are allies and who's opposition from my vantage point. Some of you definitely have closer relationships to the cops than to myself, this makes me a bit uneasy and I don't trust the group as a whole. Beyond being less articulate in person, i have a hard time believing I could have said all that I did in the letter without being interrupted, dismissed or worse based on the responses i got.
While initially I had some interest in dialoging with the BB, to sort out my concerns, my focus has shifted. I may communicate with Marisol or other individuals about these issues should we meet, in the future. But now I'm clear about my thoughts (which are generally not favorable to the BB) based on the responses I got. I feel that my concerns have been confirmed as true.
TEKOLOTE!
"In addition, not only did our responsibility include securing our people but also minimizing tensions between rival gang members. All our decisions were bases on what our community wanted, that is the only entity we respond to."
Are the gang members considered part of the community and did they want you intervening in their conflicts?
"Malcolm X once said" By any means necessary," many still don’t get what that means."
I do. It means that your going to get to some end by doing whatever it takes to get there. This is the basis for the ideology of authoritarians everywhere, from Stalin, to Hitler, or Castro, down to the "peace police" and cops at demonstrations. I'm saying that the ideology is shit. And that I'm not interested in achieving a better world by imposing my will on others among the exploited. I aim for my ends and means to be congruent. I'm not willing to do *anything* to get what i want, I have principles that guide my decisions. Some of those include a refusal to collaborate with the enemy (cops), not controlling people, etc.
"Finally, the author of this idiotic letter identified himself, that is the reason we know he is white middle class blond and privileged..."
That's interesting, because I'm not middle-class, nor blond. I have some privileges due to my genetic make-up and the context that I live in. I'm curious though why it would matter if I was blond? Would I then be less "ethnic" or "colored" and therefore more inherently oppressive? My race nor my hair have anything to do with the validity of my words. My point of view is an anti-authoritarian point of view. It is not a "European" point of view, as many people of different heritage share a similar analysis. Privilege is relative and isn't grounds for dismissal. Apparently, those who claim to know who I am, don't know what they're talking about.
"If he truly cared about our organization or community he would have had the courage to meet in person."
This one has been levied against me several times. I already explained my reasons for writing the letter over other options. This proposal is convenient for the BB because if I only meet them, the criticisms would stay within the meeting room. I'm just making it known what I've been told directly from Beret's, heard from friends, or personally observed. If the BB don't like this then maybe they need to change if they don't want to get criticism.
"Our activism and work in our community will never be dominated by impracticable theory (most written by Europeans) or ideology."
Not collaborating with cops or not telling others what to do is not "impracticable theory," it's a choice. And I don't think that it's a strictly European one, despite your attempts to make this a racial issue.
While the BB may add their own twist to things, as far as i can tell they use models of organizing from the sixties [the Black Panthers are an often cited influence], which have a primarily marxist (European) influence. While the origins of ones particular brand of organizing might be insightful, I'm trying to look at problems with these models in the hopes that more effective ones are found for those of us seeking liberation.
My conclusion is that my criticisms still stick. The criticisms make the BB look bad. This upsets those who are attempting to defend and recruit others into the organization. So I'm getting all sorts of rationalizations for objectionalable actions. I'm getting responses and insults about being a racist, a theorist, privileged or whatever. In the end I'm not impressed with the BB's conduct as a whole, despite the "professionalism" they advocate in these postings and on their website.
People will think for themselves about what's been said and come to their own conclusions.
for a world without cops and borders,
Brian
p.s. For the BB's that may have emailed me, I can't access my emails. So I can't respond. Sorry. Feel free to post your emails to me here... I might respond, but I don't know if I'll feel like putting more time into this.
"The piece-meal approach and the political need for categorization also leads the left to valorize people in terms of their membership in various oppressed and exploited groups, such as “workers”, “women”, “people of color”, “gays and lesbians” and so on. This categorization is the basis of identity politics. Identity politics is the particular form of false opposition in which oppressed people choose to identify with a particular social category through which their oppression is reinforced as a supposed act of defiance against their oppression. In fact, the continued identification with this social role limits the capacity of those who practice identity politics to analyze their situation in this society deeply and to act as individuals against their oppression. It thus guarantees the continuation of the social relationships that cause their oppression. But only as members of categories are these people useful as pawns in the political maneuverings of the left, because such social categories take on the role of pressure groups and power blocs within the democratic framework."
I also posted this on another discussion board.
I compiled some of those responses to share, they will follow this post.
Selection of postings from an Anti-Authoritarian discussion board I also posted this message to. I think they're useful. These messages were posted before Marisol responded.
Brian Carwell
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"How does anyone know what color Brian Carwell is? What's this bullshit about "whiteness"? That's called an ad hominem argument. Either the dude is right or wrong, and he sounds right about a lot to me. This is an anti-authoritarian board. Some of the Brown Berets' actions sound pretty authoritarian. If not, they should explain why. It sounds like they go to public demonstrations and interact/impact more than just people from the Latino community, so if people at these demonstrations have criticisms, they should take their lumps and shut the fuck up about racism and elitism. Why do you have to hide behind name-calling?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
subject: race etc
It's interesting that the first line of defense by supporters of the Brown Berets is racist-baiting. Of course the only possible motivation for criticism (and on pretty specific actions rather than on a particular style of organizing) is racism. Just as there were/are contradictory aspects of the May 1 marches/boycott/strikes, there are contradictory aspects to the kind of organizing engaged in by the Berets (as well as any other historical or contemporary organization based on the vagaries of ethno-racial categories). Carwell's motivations may be naive, paternalistic, and annoying, but they are not offered in bad faith (which would mean that they are overwhelmingly racist). Racist-baiting is always offered in bad faith; there is never any actual discussion possible after that allegation is made--which is precisely the point. This is a discussion board; why not try to engage in some discussion rather than endless finger-pointing?
by: Guest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
Reading the open letter from Brian Carwell, I have to say that it really comes across to me as patronizing and condesending. It sometimes reads like "good faith" criticism but in some parts reads like advice.
For example:
Quote:
"By writing this it is a confirmation that I see the Brown Beret's as a very significant grass-roots group that has a lot of potential. I've appreciated the "Youth and Power" events, the various attempts at spreading awareness about important issues, and the attentiveness that Beret's have given to issues that emanate from their communities. The Beret's I've met tended to be sincere and dedicated"
I dont think its trying to be this way but, really, I don't know the guy.
Actvists of color are right to call bullshit on white activists trying to give them advice-there is a history of that kind of abuse.
But, nonactivists, both nonwhite and white have reason to call bullshit on activists in general, and the responses from Mexicoyotl Tiahui or El Activista are nothing to write home about.
[Brian- I wrote the above quote based on the suggestion by a couple of friends who read over what I wrote before posting it. They thought that I was too heavy on my criticism and thought it would be good if I talked about some positive aspects of the BB. I wasn't meaning to be condescending or patronizing, but I guess that's not clear by how I wrote.]
by: Guest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
I want to respond to these posts, but 1st I want to say, I dont know anything about Brian-what color he is, or anything else. I don't know much about the Brown Berets and I also dont think there is any reason to automatically listen to criticism, even if its in good faith, from everybody.
If you think they know nothing about the situation-then it makes sense to ignore them. But these posters didn't ignore. They had a go.
So we're on this board and I'll say my piece if I want too. This thread is not a conversation-but it could be -so Ill try to get things going-even though I'm usually bad at that. I'm gonna asume Carwell is white-maybe I shouldnt, but it sounds like all these 3 posters are from the same town.
So maybe they know.
Anyway, I think Mexicoyotl Tiahui's post was much more solid than El Activista's, which I will get to later.
M:
Quote:
"1. The open letter comes from someone who has never struggled with us and comes from a racist, elitist perspective that aims to tell activists of color how they should organize within their own communities. Rather than being an ally, he aims to "instruct" mostly Latino activists how they organize after they have fought for social change for over 12 hard years (including 513 years of resisiting colonialism) and the writer has done absolutely nothing in or for our communities. The perspective is completely misinformed, divisive and ignorant of our struggle."
Ok, I agree with what you say about the elitist perspective. I dont think he says anything racist, but I wont argue with that point, cause I just dont know if he is coming from a racist angle or not. But, what does it matter if he's never "struggled with" you?
You dont have any opinions about the riots in France, the shit thats gone down in China or Australia ? You dont want to give critical solidarity to others that you see as on the same side as you-so as to strengthen everybody? I guess you probably know that this has been a part of of people struggling and strategizing against capitalism for a long fucking time.
Do you not engage exploited people from different communities on what they are doing, like say black workers?
If its all about having a club and having our seperate political turf, then elaborate customs of respect and declarations of solidarity with the other keep everything pretty.
If you want an end to exploitation, and repression , if you actually want to get rid of this enemy, then critical discussion happens from near and far, and your allies are sincere-they are in it for themselves and are up front about that.
By the way, who are you? How do you see yourselves? Does the brown berets represent Latino people?
M:
Quote:
"Our struggle is not a rhetorical one about what is change or "revolution," it is about making change HAPPEN in our communities. It is about improving poor peoples' lives through action and mobilizing masses of people into action such as those seen with thousands upon thousands marching throughout the region. Never has communities like Watsonville seen such political action by working people. Our involvement in marches has resulted in the most organized and powerful demonstrations seen in Santa Cruz County history and we will continue to do so."
You need to be clearer here. It sounds like "somethings go on and thats good enough cuz we're there" kind of talk. Poor peope's lives have not improved as a result of marching, so far. Maybe they will, I dont know- I hope so. But what does "improved" mean? FDR improved poeples lives. Numbers of people by themselves don't mean too much. I guess some slaves would like an improvement in their lives,others want freedom, and end to slavery, liberation.
Do you think they all see discussion about liberation, and revolutionary change as just rhetoric?
Talking about kicking over the system is less bullshit to me than what you posted here which sounds like the same old liberal feel good holdover that kept poor people of color siding with their representatives and managers of color for 30 years.
This could be a quote from a union or church group or even a social worker.
If you talk about revolution as rhetoric and reforms as not, then you are not siding with the exploited peole of this world-which is why you're words end up matching the govenments and bussinesses way of talking. Hopefully (here 's my good faith now) you mean very different things and will clarify that on this thread.
Quote:
"We are involved in a wide range community issues including reducing gang violence that has taken the lives of so many of our local youth and empowering our neighborhoods. It is our children who are being killed or incarcerated in mass. Gang violence or gang graffiti are not revolutionary when it is being used as a tool of self-destruction within our own communities."
Again, how do words like involved ,a wide range community issues, empowering neighborhoods. say anything that we cant hear from the mouth of a politicain or activist.? Bush could use those words, he does actually. What do they mean when you use them?
The police live in your neighborhood, do you empower them? I hope not.
What does empower mean? If your gonna say "we are doing this and this"-say what it is please.
Now I respect what you said about Graffiti. If you are talking about cleanng up only gang grafitti, and this Brian guy doesn't see the difference betweeen that and any old graf then you are very right that he doesn't know the context here.
Quote:
"Someone who has never struggled with the Latino community and is ignorant of our local plight can come to some seriously flawed conclusions like those written above. But we will not be deterred and we will continue to struggle and demand change for the betterment of our people."
I already said that I disagree that anyone needs to have struggled
with you and I still question who you is supposed to speak for.
But I definately agree whith you that if the person or group is ignorant of the situation or context then they will come to flawed conclusions.
But why bother just stating that? Ignore them, or challenge them-show that they are flawed.
I also want to respond to El Activista and ask about this police collaboration shit as well as some of the points that Carwell made that I think are right on .
by: guest
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
subject: This must be the most Ive ever posted.
A:
Quote:
"The letter by "Brian Carwell" is simply on attack piece against one of the most powerful organizations for youth of color in the Monterey Bay. I have seen time and time again that the Berets have endured the brunt of attacks by local right wing conservatives, racists, and anti-immigrants. The attack above is in that tradition, but attempts to create smoke screen by saying it is a "tool for you to consider." It seems like it is no coincidence that this attack piece came out only a day after the largest pro-immigrant demonstrations in Santa Cruz County and throughout the country."
This is ridiculous. Dont you think its more likely that he is not right wing at all ( Is anti grafitti clean up a common position among right wingers?), and that it came after the immigrant marches because the dude was actually there, intereted, on the same side (against the bill etc.) ?
Quote:
"The misinformed writer of the "open letter" attack piece very condescendingly tells Latino activists how they should organize their own communities when this white so-called "anarchist" has never done anything for our children, our farmworkers, our parents, our poor, our immigrants, our suffering, or for our struggle."
So are you against self determination or autonomy of the struggles of these groups (children, farmworkers, immigrants etc.)? You think others should strullge for you? Do you want charity? You can't have it both ways.
What have you done for Carwell's struggle? Why would anyone be in any struggle but their own? Solidarity isn't organizing other people. And we cant be in others' shoes. Do I have to have been an Iraqui or an american GI to be against the war?
Quote:
"I have seen the Berets build coalitions with people from many different backgrounds, geographical regions, ages, sexual orientations, religions and races. They are a powerful force for change and have been on the forefront in addressing tough issues poverty, violence, police abuse, educational empowerment, unemployment, increasing political activism- to name a few."
Coalition means what? Is it more than an endorsement on the bottom of a flyer? If so, what does it means as far as people directly fighting for themselves against what exploits and excludes them?
I'm asking sincerely, there is so much activist speak in your post that I dont know what it looks like in reality.
Coalitions of all these different identities..hmmm youk now who else builds coalitions of all these categories of unfortunately categorized people? Capitalism does.
Who are you calling white when you talk like a politician with all this lingo, issues, forefront, force for change, adressing-these are all the kinds of words which beat around the bush. And theres no thought here, no strategey at all. Just increase activism,speak out. More of the same but louder. Apparently people werent doing that or couldn't, they needed a powerful organization to stand up and do it. Finally that org is here.This really shows the elitism of activists. Activist=active, versus the rest of your community -they do nothing I guess, invisible, apathetic. Give us a break.
And as far as standing up speaking/ out goes -Why hasnt it worked so far? Is it possible to look at the past and present and ask why we are still fucked and be critical to work out tactics?
Quote:
"But it is despicable when someone completely ignorant of their struggle then goes and tries to dictate what they should do and attacks them with false information, which his open letter is saturated with. Ignorance made him look like a complete fool this time."
That may be true, but you look like a fool too cause you can't argue for it.
You just make glorious pronouncements about how widespread and powerful your group is. Why not show up this false information?
by: Guest
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
I think that a lot of people are missing the point of this, how "Brian Carwell" wrote the letter isn't the issue, but instead what was written. Who cares if it sounds "elitist" or "privileged." Had he written the letter in another form people would have said that he was some random "kid" or "incoherent."
I don't know much about the Berets, and I haven't actually been to any of their events, but if any of this is true then maybe the Berets and other left-leaning organizations should analyze how their actions may be inferred as authoritarian. When groups act under the term "revolutionary" then they should ensure that they are not simply another catalyst of reform.
by:stranger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough.
I dont think I have missed that point, but that I have a big mouth on this topic and simply havent finished talking yet. I think bzfgt put the same thought pretty well. But I do also think how Brian wrote it matters, all the more because of what it says. I'm not trying to take the repsonsibilty off of his attackers at all, I just think how he write it makes their accusations that much more plausible when he writes in a style which makes his motives supect. thats what distracts us from the points it contains.
Maybe alot of people here are really used to obnoxiuos writing styles, especially since thats how many of the eccentric European writers who have influnced so many here tend to write sometimes. I know I am-I just pick out what I like and dont care about their personality. But the better ones also know how to communicate with lots of kinds of people in difernt situations. I mean, if I want, I can talk thats useful to who I'm talking to, without losing my own style or mocking anyone, and without sounding like an alien...
by: Guest ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
Quote:
"No it means "Brian Carwell" is full of shit and doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. For anyone who has organized a large public march, there is always some kind of communication with the local police. This does not equate with working with them in the sense that you are trying to imply.
I have seen the Berets focus their time on making change happen rather than getting bogged down in bullshit and theorizing about change. When have you heard of "Brian Carwell" doing anything to make change. While he is talking shit, the Berets are in the trenches fighting the good fight."
This is the biggest bullshit. I know of quite a few "marches" that were organized without communicating with the police, unless communicating with means avoiding, throwing things at, screaming at, running from, being beaten by etc.
Whoever heard of the brown berets? The democratic party are way more well known than you guys, I guess they are the ones making the real "change". Please xplain the difference between collaboration and comunication.
If someone says you work with the cops, you better laugh it off or rebutt it, or else if its true, admit you are just another political gang.
As soon as you say that theory is the opposite of action I know you count yourself out of any "good fight".
by: NotInMyName
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri May 05, 2006
ElActivista wrote:
"No it means "Brian Carwell" is full of shit and doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. For anyone who has organized a large public march, there is always some kind of communication with the local police. This does not equate with working with them in the sense that you are trying to imply."
Ok, so the Brown Berets did work with police then?
I think this response demonstrates the issue at hand here. That is, the problem with representatives and leaders who, as ElActivista says, must communicate with police (I'm assuming he means a more detailed communication than "fuck you pig"). This role of controlling and representing a march, or attempting to, which involves working with police, is something that I find a lot of problems with.
To me the point of marching or whatever is to do it in defiance of the police and without permit or permission, not to talk with the cops and work out a deal or compromise. But, activists will be activists...
by: yoshomon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri May 05, 2006
If all of the responses to him have avoided every single point he made, are we to assume that the accusuations he made are true?
by: yoshomon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri May 05, 2006
I'll try to make my point again using a different tack. The racist-baiters came to this forum not to discuss, but to shut down discussion. "400 years of slavery" or "500 years of colonialism" is all that needs to be invoked (according to a particular discourse) to shut up any person perceived as white. Regardless of the merits of specific criticisms--and regardless of how they are presented. Public actions merit public criticism. Calling a person who identifies as an anarchist (regardless of whether or not you agree with her/his identification, thank you very much for that little bit of patronizing judgement) the same as a right winger just because he has a criticism of an authoritarian organization that presents itself as radical is offensive as well as being ad hominem. Authoritarian actions coming from a group that presents itself as radical demand an anti-authoritarian response, whether it comes in the form of a naive open letter or a private denunciation. Sometimes anarchists play nice with each other and with those who aren't anarchists, sometimes not. Radical (anti-)politics is no place for those with thin skins--regardless of its "color".
by: Guest
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri May 05, 2006
""The following is a letter I emailed to the Brown Beret's to address specific problems I've had with their actions. It is meant to be a starting point in a constructive dialogue."
WRONG. The correct starting point for any kind of constructive dialogue of this sort would be to ask why should the Brown Berets care about what your specific problems with their actions are?
This is like some random kid writing an open letter to the head coach of the Oakland Raiders about what his specific problems are with the Radiers offense. You are overestimating your own importance, here, MR Carwell.
A real problem with "the left" is that it is full of people like you who think nothing of sitting down to pen a letter to someone/a group you don't know, have never worked with, only observed from afar, full of criticisms and advice. Of course, with the best of intentions, those being to get your two cents in without paying your dues or knowing the score, to exert an influence from the armchair in your living room, to feel like, with a minor assertion of entitlement and with a brief tapping of fingers on a keyboard, youve gently nudged the revolutionaries of the world one step closer to acting in concert with your desired operating procedure of "the right way".
Damn, man, you've got a lot of nerve. If you wanted to criticize the BB and tell them to fuck off, because they insulted you, or to slag them for being sellouts or racists or something else, at least that would be honest (tho i guess not "constructive" dialogue). This piece reeks of privelege and entitlement and disingenuity. by: uGH"
UGH, are you saying that only those who have established some kind of ephemeral (since you never provide any criteria) credibility or credentials are entitled to offer public criticism? Are you saying that this privilege only belongs to those who are engaged in projects and organizations similar (or virtually identical) to those being criticized? I suppose I should be happy that you didn't call Carwell a racist. Oh yeah, I forgot for a moment that "entitlement" and "privelege" [sic] are code words for that.
In case you forgot, advice is cheap, and the recipient(s) can take it or leave it. Advice (especially from a stranger) is usually ignored, so what's up with your paranoia about Carwell trying "to exert an influence" on the Brown Berets? Or do you really believe that any time a white person says or writes anything, he/she is only trying to colonize others?
non-platformist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri May 05, 2006
subject: fucking A
"This is like some random kid writing an open letter to the head coach of the Oakland Raiders about what his specific problems are with the Radiers offense. You are overestimating your own importance, here, MR Carwell."
If there were a rigid distinction between audience and participant at a demonstration the way there is at a football game, this would be a good analogy. As it stands, it's absurd. As one of the people who were (apparently) herded, hectored and deployed by the Brown Berets, I'd say BC has every right to criticize. If you don't like it, refute it or ignore it, but quit crying about it, it's embarassing to watch.
bzfgt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that after these responses from more Brown Berets and supporters of them have now been posted, what was mentioned before, how it was written, clearly matters. I thought it seemed condescending, and I'm not alone. I think these people know better than me what the character of Brian is, and he hasn't posted again to defend himself here either. I leave that matter to other folks.
Now,to Marisol and Teko, M.S., and others who put up some real responses (thanks btw) I want to adress a few things. I am pretty direct and dont mean any disresect-just cause I say something doesnt mean I think I'm the only one who's thought of it-it means I havent seen it made clear right here.
First, there are alot of things in that guy's letter that haven't been addressed. The time on the bridge and only recieving a call from the cops(but not working with them right?) have been responded to. but, like what about taking up poistions in local gov't? Teko said something but I'm not clear.
And: Cleaning up all graffitti? or just from gangs?
And if conflict isnt allowed at the demos that you guys do security for, who's decision is that? Do the people who go all know that the march has a specific limited range of tactics and focus that doesn't include autonomous action?
I understand that many who organize a march dont agree to violence, but many who go dont necesarilly agree to peace. And streets are streets they belong to everyone. Not everyone has agreed to give up the steets to certain tactics or ways of doing thins on a given day.
From Teko's post:
Quote:
"One cannot separate the community from political or direct action. Public protest and demonstrations are an integral part to the road of liberation, justice and dignity. When organizing marches, rallies and demonstration it is imperative to take all members of our community into consideration. If marches constituted only privileged middle class late teenage white kids, then maybe we could risk chaos and mass arrest. The next day your parents will be bailing you out or calling the family lawyer. That is not reality for poor people of color. Harassment, arrest and incarceration are already an everyday occurrence in our barrios and ghettoes. Latinos and Blacks make up over 65% of the population in CA prison. It is our duty to keep our people out!"
Listen this is probably gonna make us have to talk about what liberation means and also about different kinds of demos or actions, which is cool.
But, To me, you're making it sound like people of color can't act rebellious or break out of legal petitioning actions like a normal march, because of repression. Then you say the repression already there. Which is it?
Well to remind you, most people in this world who revolt, who disobey, who do direct action at demos, who riot (among many other totally different and equally important activities) are people of color!
So how is privelage a prerequisite ?
What youre saying sounds more to me like an expression of north american
left liberal tradition than a close look at the history and breadth of resistance in both this country and others.
Secondly, the cops job is to protect property directly or indirectly, so if the threat is there at a demo-they will bring down repression on people of any color. Even though the people of color will usually face a worse time of it than white comrades, that doesnt lessen the long years inside,harrassment, torture and even murderthat "white" comrades have faced along with other people. Numerous examples can be given if you want them.
Most importantly you are asserting here that autonomy or militancy breads repression. You dont blame the police(?), instead you appear to me to be blaming the victim. And the repression is already here, and doesn't go away by people supporting those who do resist more directly.
Actually not supporting and standing by people who resist breads repression. Another question: People who face heavy repression everyday and can only march peacefully for fear of more. If thats the state of the social relations than what can we expect to gain from these same repressive powers by only walking around in the street? It seems like its a problem.
then:
Quote:
"Understanding that our community has been historically marginalized and oppressed it is imperative to utilize all tools at our disposal including grassroots local political participation. White rich conservative land owners/ growers have historically dominated the decision making process in rural communities like Watsonville. At the same time our schools were in dilapidated conditions, graduation rates were at 50%, unemployment and housing opportunities were nil, and poverty kept us powerless. Their time is over and our people will be treated with dignity while having the right to a rich education. We must learn to agitate at all levels. Malcolm X once said" By any means necessary," many still don’t get what that means."
The problem with this is that your community is not some solid block that has existed that way over time. There is no take on capitalism or the state in your words-but that makes all the difference. Colonization/capitalism isn't here because of racism, racism is the tool of colonization. Just like everywhere else, partcipating in politics will 1.Just get you absorbed by them, you will work for them. This is what has happened everywhere throughout history.Or you will do what it takes to resist that and be excluded from the political arena anyway. If you get out of poverty through this process it will be the same way the rest of the mexcian or black borgiousie has done so, by exploiting their neighbors and oither mebers of their community. If there were another way, why all the repression from the cops (they know you must be targetted beuase there is no other way open to you but self organization and rebellion)-and why wouldnt that path have been taken already?
There's more to say and hear, and to others like Marisol. But I don't want to post too much, I know I go on and on sometimes. But I want to get to what we mean when we say revolution. I think there is a certain thread that runs through most of the post from brown berets here, and that we have some real diffrences and it s good to make them clear. Community service can be great, and needs no justification, no defense. But the word revolution still means something and its not that.
Brian Carwell
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"How does anyone know what color Brian Carwell is? What's this bullshit about "whiteness"? That's called an ad hominem argument. Either the dude is right or wrong, and he sounds right about a lot to me. This is an anti-authoritarian board. Some of the Brown Berets' actions sound pretty authoritarian. If not, they should explain why. It sounds like they go to public demonstrations and interact/impact more than just people from the Latino community, so if people at these demonstrations have criticisms, they should take their lumps and shut the fuck up about racism and elitism. Why do you have to hide behind name-calling?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
subject: race etc
It's interesting that the first line of defense by supporters of the Brown Berets is racist-baiting. Of course the only possible motivation for criticism (and on pretty specific actions rather than on a particular style of organizing) is racism. Just as there were/are contradictory aspects of the May 1 marches/boycott/strikes, there are contradictory aspects to the kind of organizing engaged in by the Berets (as well as any other historical or contemporary organization based on the vagaries of ethno-racial categories). Carwell's motivations may be naive, paternalistic, and annoying, but they are not offered in bad faith (which would mean that they are overwhelmingly racist). Racist-baiting is always offered in bad faith; there is never any actual discussion possible after that allegation is made--which is precisely the point. This is a discussion board; why not try to engage in some discussion rather than endless finger-pointing?
by: Guest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
Reading the open letter from Brian Carwell, I have to say that it really comes across to me as patronizing and condesending. It sometimes reads like "good faith" criticism but in some parts reads like advice.
For example:
Quote:
"By writing this it is a confirmation that I see the Brown Beret's as a very significant grass-roots group that has a lot of potential. I've appreciated the "Youth and Power" events, the various attempts at spreading awareness about important issues, and the attentiveness that Beret's have given to issues that emanate from their communities. The Beret's I've met tended to be sincere and dedicated"
I dont think its trying to be this way but, really, I don't know the guy.
Actvists of color are right to call bullshit on white activists trying to give them advice-there is a history of that kind of abuse.
But, nonactivists, both nonwhite and white have reason to call bullshit on activists in general, and the responses from Mexicoyotl Tiahui or El Activista are nothing to write home about.
[Brian- I wrote the above quote based on the suggestion by a couple of friends who read over what I wrote before posting it. They thought that I was too heavy on my criticism and thought it would be good if I talked about some positive aspects of the BB. I wasn't meaning to be condescending or patronizing, but I guess that's not clear by how I wrote.]
by: Guest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
I want to respond to these posts, but 1st I want to say, I dont know anything about Brian-what color he is, or anything else. I don't know much about the Brown Berets and I also dont think there is any reason to automatically listen to criticism, even if its in good faith, from everybody.
If you think they know nothing about the situation-then it makes sense to ignore them. But these posters didn't ignore. They had a go.
So we're on this board and I'll say my piece if I want too. This thread is not a conversation-but it could be -so Ill try to get things going-even though I'm usually bad at that. I'm gonna asume Carwell is white-maybe I shouldnt, but it sounds like all these 3 posters are from the same town.
So maybe they know.
Anyway, I think Mexicoyotl Tiahui's post was much more solid than El Activista's, which I will get to later.
M:
Quote:
"1. The open letter comes from someone who has never struggled with us and comes from a racist, elitist perspective that aims to tell activists of color how they should organize within their own communities. Rather than being an ally, he aims to "instruct" mostly Latino activists how they organize after they have fought for social change for over 12 hard years (including 513 years of resisiting colonialism) and the writer has done absolutely nothing in or for our communities. The perspective is completely misinformed, divisive and ignorant of our struggle."
Ok, I agree with what you say about the elitist perspective. I dont think he says anything racist, but I wont argue with that point, cause I just dont know if he is coming from a racist angle or not. But, what does it matter if he's never "struggled with" you?
You dont have any opinions about the riots in France, the shit thats gone down in China or Australia ? You dont want to give critical solidarity to others that you see as on the same side as you-so as to strengthen everybody? I guess you probably know that this has been a part of of people struggling and strategizing against capitalism for a long fucking time.
Do you not engage exploited people from different communities on what they are doing, like say black workers?
If its all about having a club and having our seperate political turf, then elaborate customs of respect and declarations of solidarity with the other keep everything pretty.
If you want an end to exploitation, and repression , if you actually want to get rid of this enemy, then critical discussion happens from near and far, and your allies are sincere-they are in it for themselves and are up front about that.
By the way, who are you? How do you see yourselves? Does the brown berets represent Latino people?
M:
Quote:
"Our struggle is not a rhetorical one about what is change or "revolution," it is about making change HAPPEN in our communities. It is about improving poor peoples' lives through action and mobilizing masses of people into action such as those seen with thousands upon thousands marching throughout the region. Never has communities like Watsonville seen such political action by working people. Our involvement in marches has resulted in the most organized and powerful demonstrations seen in Santa Cruz County history and we will continue to do so."
You need to be clearer here. It sounds like "somethings go on and thats good enough cuz we're there" kind of talk. Poor peope's lives have not improved as a result of marching, so far. Maybe they will, I dont know- I hope so. But what does "improved" mean? FDR improved poeples lives. Numbers of people by themselves don't mean too much. I guess some slaves would like an improvement in their lives,others want freedom, and end to slavery, liberation.
Do you think they all see discussion about liberation, and revolutionary change as just rhetoric?
Talking about kicking over the system is less bullshit to me than what you posted here which sounds like the same old liberal feel good holdover that kept poor people of color siding with their representatives and managers of color for 30 years.
This could be a quote from a union or church group or even a social worker.
If you talk about revolution as rhetoric and reforms as not, then you are not siding with the exploited peole of this world-which is why you're words end up matching the govenments and bussinesses way of talking. Hopefully (here 's my good faith now) you mean very different things and will clarify that on this thread.
Quote:
"We are involved in a wide range community issues including reducing gang violence that has taken the lives of so many of our local youth and empowering our neighborhoods. It is our children who are being killed or incarcerated in mass. Gang violence or gang graffiti are not revolutionary when it is being used as a tool of self-destruction within our own communities."
Again, how do words like involved ,a wide range community issues, empowering neighborhoods. say anything that we cant hear from the mouth of a politicain or activist.? Bush could use those words, he does actually. What do they mean when you use them?
The police live in your neighborhood, do you empower them? I hope not.
What does empower mean? If your gonna say "we are doing this and this"-say what it is please.
Now I respect what you said about Graffiti. If you are talking about cleanng up only gang grafitti, and this Brian guy doesn't see the difference betweeen that and any old graf then you are very right that he doesn't know the context here.
Quote:
"Someone who has never struggled with the Latino community and is ignorant of our local plight can come to some seriously flawed conclusions like those written above. But we will not be deterred and we will continue to struggle and demand change for the betterment of our people."
I already said that I disagree that anyone needs to have struggled
with you and I still question who you is supposed to speak for.
But I definately agree whith you that if the person or group is ignorant of the situation or context then they will come to flawed conclusions.
But why bother just stating that? Ignore them, or challenge them-show that they are flawed.
I also want to respond to El Activista and ask about this police collaboration shit as well as some of the points that Carwell made that I think are right on .
by: guest
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
subject: This must be the most Ive ever posted.
A:
Quote:
"The letter by "Brian Carwell" is simply on attack piece against one of the most powerful organizations for youth of color in the Monterey Bay. I have seen time and time again that the Berets have endured the brunt of attacks by local right wing conservatives, racists, and anti-immigrants. The attack above is in that tradition, but attempts to create smoke screen by saying it is a "tool for you to consider." It seems like it is no coincidence that this attack piece came out only a day after the largest pro-immigrant demonstrations in Santa Cruz County and throughout the country."
This is ridiculous. Dont you think its more likely that he is not right wing at all ( Is anti grafitti clean up a common position among right wingers?), and that it came after the immigrant marches because the dude was actually there, intereted, on the same side (against the bill etc.) ?
Quote:
"The misinformed writer of the "open letter" attack piece very condescendingly tells Latino activists how they should organize their own communities when this white so-called "anarchist" has never done anything for our children, our farmworkers, our parents, our poor, our immigrants, our suffering, or for our struggle."
So are you against self determination or autonomy of the struggles of these groups (children, farmworkers, immigrants etc.)? You think others should strullge for you? Do you want charity? You can't have it both ways.
What have you done for Carwell's struggle? Why would anyone be in any struggle but their own? Solidarity isn't organizing other people. And we cant be in others' shoes. Do I have to have been an Iraqui or an american GI to be against the war?
Quote:
"I have seen the Berets build coalitions with people from many different backgrounds, geographical regions, ages, sexual orientations, religions and races. They are a powerful force for change and have been on the forefront in addressing tough issues poverty, violence, police abuse, educational empowerment, unemployment, increasing political activism- to name a few."
Coalition means what? Is it more than an endorsement on the bottom of a flyer? If so, what does it means as far as people directly fighting for themselves against what exploits and excludes them?
I'm asking sincerely, there is so much activist speak in your post that I dont know what it looks like in reality.
Coalitions of all these different identities..hmmm youk now who else builds coalitions of all these categories of unfortunately categorized people? Capitalism does.
Who are you calling white when you talk like a politician with all this lingo, issues, forefront, force for change, adressing-these are all the kinds of words which beat around the bush. And theres no thought here, no strategey at all. Just increase activism,speak out. More of the same but louder. Apparently people werent doing that or couldn't, they needed a powerful organization to stand up and do it. Finally that org is here.This really shows the elitism of activists. Activist=active, versus the rest of your community -they do nothing I guess, invisible, apathetic. Give us a break.
And as far as standing up speaking/ out goes -Why hasnt it worked so far? Is it possible to look at the past and present and ask why we are still fucked and be critical to work out tactics?
Quote:
"But it is despicable when someone completely ignorant of their struggle then goes and tries to dictate what they should do and attacks them with false information, which his open letter is saturated with. Ignorance made him look like a complete fool this time."
That may be true, but you look like a fool too cause you can't argue for it.
You just make glorious pronouncements about how widespread and powerful your group is. Why not show up this false information?
by: Guest
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
I think that a lot of people are missing the point of this, how "Brian Carwell" wrote the letter isn't the issue, but instead what was written. Who cares if it sounds "elitist" or "privileged." Had he written the letter in another form people would have said that he was some random "kid" or "incoherent."
I don't know much about the Berets, and I haven't actually been to any of their events, but if any of this is true then maybe the Berets and other left-leaning organizations should analyze how their actions may be inferred as authoritarian. When groups act under the term "revolutionary" then they should ensure that they are not simply another catalyst of reform.
by:stranger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough.
I dont think I have missed that point, but that I have a big mouth on this topic and simply havent finished talking yet. I think bzfgt put the same thought pretty well. But I do also think how Brian wrote it matters, all the more because of what it says. I'm not trying to take the repsonsibilty off of his attackers at all, I just think how he write it makes their accusations that much more plausible when he writes in a style which makes his motives supect. thats what distracts us from the points it contains.
Maybe alot of people here are really used to obnoxiuos writing styles, especially since thats how many of the eccentric European writers who have influnced so many here tend to write sometimes. I know I am-I just pick out what I like and dont care about their personality. But the better ones also know how to communicate with lots of kinds of people in difernt situations. I mean, if I want, I can talk thats useful to who I'm talking to, without losing my own style or mocking anyone, and without sounding like an alien...
by: Guest ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu May 04, 2006
Quote:
"No it means "Brian Carwell" is full of shit and doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. For anyone who has organized a large public march, there is always some kind of communication with the local police. This does not equate with working with them in the sense that you are trying to imply.
I have seen the Berets focus their time on making change happen rather than getting bogged down in bullshit and theorizing about change. When have you heard of "Brian Carwell" doing anything to make change. While he is talking shit, the Berets are in the trenches fighting the good fight."
This is the biggest bullshit. I know of quite a few "marches" that were organized without communicating with the police, unless communicating with means avoiding, throwing things at, screaming at, running from, being beaten by etc.
Whoever heard of the brown berets? The democratic party are way more well known than you guys, I guess they are the ones making the real "change". Please xplain the difference between collaboration and comunication.
If someone says you work with the cops, you better laugh it off or rebutt it, or else if its true, admit you are just another political gang.
As soon as you say that theory is the opposite of action I know you count yourself out of any "good fight".
by: NotInMyName
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri May 05, 2006
ElActivista wrote:
"No it means "Brian Carwell" is full of shit and doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. For anyone who has organized a large public march, there is always some kind of communication with the local police. This does not equate with working with them in the sense that you are trying to imply."
Ok, so the Brown Berets did work with police then?
I think this response demonstrates the issue at hand here. That is, the problem with representatives and leaders who, as ElActivista says, must communicate with police (I'm assuming he means a more detailed communication than "fuck you pig"). This role of controlling and representing a march, or attempting to, which involves working with police, is something that I find a lot of problems with.
To me the point of marching or whatever is to do it in defiance of the police and without permit or permission, not to talk with the cops and work out a deal or compromise. But, activists will be activists...
by: yoshomon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri May 05, 2006
If all of the responses to him have avoided every single point he made, are we to assume that the accusuations he made are true?
by: yoshomon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri May 05, 2006
I'll try to make my point again using a different tack. The racist-baiters came to this forum not to discuss, but to shut down discussion. "400 years of slavery" or "500 years of colonialism" is all that needs to be invoked (according to a particular discourse) to shut up any person perceived as white. Regardless of the merits of specific criticisms--and regardless of how they are presented. Public actions merit public criticism. Calling a person who identifies as an anarchist (regardless of whether or not you agree with her/his identification, thank you very much for that little bit of patronizing judgement) the same as a right winger just because he has a criticism of an authoritarian organization that presents itself as radical is offensive as well as being ad hominem. Authoritarian actions coming from a group that presents itself as radical demand an anti-authoritarian response, whether it comes in the form of a naive open letter or a private denunciation. Sometimes anarchists play nice with each other and with those who aren't anarchists, sometimes not. Radical (anti-)politics is no place for those with thin skins--regardless of its "color".
by: Guest
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri May 05, 2006
""The following is a letter I emailed to the Brown Beret's to address specific problems I've had with their actions. It is meant to be a starting point in a constructive dialogue."
WRONG. The correct starting point for any kind of constructive dialogue of this sort would be to ask why should the Brown Berets care about what your specific problems with their actions are?
This is like some random kid writing an open letter to the head coach of the Oakland Raiders about what his specific problems are with the Radiers offense. You are overestimating your own importance, here, MR Carwell.
A real problem with "the left" is that it is full of people like you who think nothing of sitting down to pen a letter to someone/a group you don't know, have never worked with, only observed from afar, full of criticisms and advice. Of course, with the best of intentions, those being to get your two cents in without paying your dues or knowing the score, to exert an influence from the armchair in your living room, to feel like, with a minor assertion of entitlement and with a brief tapping of fingers on a keyboard, youve gently nudged the revolutionaries of the world one step closer to acting in concert with your desired operating procedure of "the right way".
Damn, man, you've got a lot of nerve. If you wanted to criticize the BB and tell them to fuck off, because they insulted you, or to slag them for being sellouts or racists or something else, at least that would be honest (tho i guess not "constructive" dialogue). This piece reeks of privelege and entitlement and disingenuity. by: uGH"
UGH, are you saying that only those who have established some kind of ephemeral (since you never provide any criteria) credibility or credentials are entitled to offer public criticism? Are you saying that this privilege only belongs to those who are engaged in projects and organizations similar (or virtually identical) to those being criticized? I suppose I should be happy that you didn't call Carwell a racist. Oh yeah, I forgot for a moment that "entitlement" and "privelege" [sic] are code words for that.
In case you forgot, advice is cheap, and the recipient(s) can take it or leave it. Advice (especially from a stranger) is usually ignored, so what's up with your paranoia about Carwell trying "to exert an influence" on the Brown Berets? Or do you really believe that any time a white person says or writes anything, he/she is only trying to colonize others?
non-platformist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri May 05, 2006
subject: fucking A
"This is like some random kid writing an open letter to the head coach of the Oakland Raiders about what his specific problems are with the Radiers offense. You are overestimating your own importance, here, MR Carwell."
If there were a rigid distinction between audience and participant at a demonstration the way there is at a football game, this would be a good analogy. As it stands, it's absurd. As one of the people who were (apparently) herded, hectored and deployed by the Brown Berets, I'd say BC has every right to criticize. If you don't like it, refute it or ignore it, but quit crying about it, it's embarassing to watch.
bzfgt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that after these responses from more Brown Berets and supporters of them have now been posted, what was mentioned before, how it was written, clearly matters. I thought it seemed condescending, and I'm not alone. I think these people know better than me what the character of Brian is, and he hasn't posted again to defend himself here either. I leave that matter to other folks.
Now,to Marisol and Teko, M.S., and others who put up some real responses (thanks btw) I want to adress a few things. I am pretty direct and dont mean any disresect-just cause I say something doesnt mean I think I'm the only one who's thought of it-it means I havent seen it made clear right here.
First, there are alot of things in that guy's letter that haven't been addressed. The time on the bridge and only recieving a call from the cops(but not working with them right?) have been responded to. but, like what about taking up poistions in local gov't? Teko said something but I'm not clear.
And: Cleaning up all graffitti? or just from gangs?
And if conflict isnt allowed at the demos that you guys do security for, who's decision is that? Do the people who go all know that the march has a specific limited range of tactics and focus that doesn't include autonomous action?
I understand that many who organize a march dont agree to violence, but many who go dont necesarilly agree to peace. And streets are streets they belong to everyone. Not everyone has agreed to give up the steets to certain tactics or ways of doing thins on a given day.
From Teko's post:
Quote:
"One cannot separate the community from political or direct action. Public protest and demonstrations are an integral part to the road of liberation, justice and dignity. When organizing marches, rallies and demonstration it is imperative to take all members of our community into consideration. If marches constituted only privileged middle class late teenage white kids, then maybe we could risk chaos and mass arrest. The next day your parents will be bailing you out or calling the family lawyer. That is not reality for poor people of color. Harassment, arrest and incarceration are already an everyday occurrence in our barrios and ghettoes. Latinos and Blacks make up over 65% of the population in CA prison. It is our duty to keep our people out!"
Listen this is probably gonna make us have to talk about what liberation means and also about different kinds of demos or actions, which is cool.
But, To me, you're making it sound like people of color can't act rebellious or break out of legal petitioning actions like a normal march, because of repression. Then you say the repression already there. Which is it?
Well to remind you, most people in this world who revolt, who disobey, who do direct action at demos, who riot (among many other totally different and equally important activities) are people of color!
So how is privelage a prerequisite ?
What youre saying sounds more to me like an expression of north american
left liberal tradition than a close look at the history and breadth of resistance in both this country and others.
Secondly, the cops job is to protect property directly or indirectly, so if the threat is there at a demo-they will bring down repression on people of any color. Even though the people of color will usually face a worse time of it than white comrades, that doesnt lessen the long years inside,harrassment, torture and even murderthat "white" comrades have faced along with other people. Numerous examples can be given if you want them.
Most importantly you are asserting here that autonomy or militancy breads repression. You dont blame the police(?), instead you appear to me to be blaming the victim. And the repression is already here, and doesn't go away by people supporting those who do resist more directly.
Actually not supporting and standing by people who resist breads repression. Another question: People who face heavy repression everyday and can only march peacefully for fear of more. If thats the state of the social relations than what can we expect to gain from these same repressive powers by only walking around in the street? It seems like its a problem.
then:
Quote:
"Understanding that our community has been historically marginalized and oppressed it is imperative to utilize all tools at our disposal including grassroots local political participation. White rich conservative land owners/ growers have historically dominated the decision making process in rural communities like Watsonville. At the same time our schools were in dilapidated conditions, graduation rates were at 50%, unemployment and housing opportunities were nil, and poverty kept us powerless. Their time is over and our people will be treated with dignity while having the right to a rich education. We must learn to agitate at all levels. Malcolm X once said" By any means necessary," many still don’t get what that means."
The problem with this is that your community is not some solid block that has existed that way over time. There is no take on capitalism or the state in your words-but that makes all the difference. Colonization/capitalism isn't here because of racism, racism is the tool of colonization. Just like everywhere else, partcipating in politics will 1.Just get you absorbed by them, you will work for them. This is what has happened everywhere throughout history.Or you will do what it takes to resist that and be excluded from the political arena anyway. If you get out of poverty through this process it will be the same way the rest of the mexcian or black borgiousie has done so, by exploiting their neighbors and oither mebers of their community. If there were another way, why all the repression from the cops (they know you must be targetted beuase there is no other way open to you but self organization and rebellion)-and why wouldnt that path have been taken already?
There's more to say and hear, and to others like Marisol. But I don't want to post too much, I know I go on and on sometimes. But I want to get to what we mean when we say revolution. I think there is a certain thread that runs through most of the post from brown berets here, and that we have some real diffrences and it s good to make them clear. Community service can be great, and needs no justification, no defense. But the word revolution still means something and its not that.
"Comrades(?),
First off, I must say this is quite a tornado to be stepping into at this point. But I would like to add a few of my own observations of the Mayday demonstration, and hopefully clarify some points made earlier concerning the roles of the 'revolutionary organizers'.
Second, you can save all the racist mud-slinging, as I am in fact NOT "a middle-class, privileged, white kid from Santa Cruz". I don't actually think it's relevant if I am or not, but I thought I'd save you all the time that you wasted discrediting 'Brian' because of your assumptions.
I personally decided to take part in the Mayday demonstration in downtown Santa Cruz. There were several factors going into the demonstration that made me excited to be in downtown Santa Cruz during the day's events. I most definitely found myself appreciating the effort and time that some people took to come voice their opposition to America's war on "illegal" 'immigrants', undocumented workers, and other undesirables of society.
I also decided to immerse myself into the crowd, but perhaps not for all of the same reasons that most did. While I whole-heartedly embrace the need for dissent surrounding the increasingly repressive 'immigrant' policies of this country, I also hold with me an urgency that is integral to who I am, and what my aspirations in life are. This urgency is my soul needing to resist this society as a whole, and the alienation of modern life. I can not merely 'deal with' or work around the miserable and exploitive conditions of my (our) lives any longer. This would imply an acceptance for the time being, and I'm not going out like that.
So, the way my intentions for attending the event probably differed from other peoples', were that this was more than just a protest against a new policy, or the current conduct of the Amerikkkan government for me. I hoped that the demonstration would amount to a more general and intense situation. I went there with the hopes of fulfilling some of my desires to defy this police state, in a concrete, and physical way. I went there with no intention of becoming part of the 'organized people's movement', but instead as an individual striving to feel alive (if only for a moment), in a world that makes me feel like the living dead. This feeling of life could have taken various forms, but I feel it is irrelevant to state them here now. Regardless of the timeliness, I was there because it was an opportunity to put my passions (and 'politics') to action.
When I first showed up at the Clock Tower downtown, there was maybe 50 people holding signs, waiting for the rest of the community to show up. As the massive crowd coming from the Beach Flats roared through Pacific St. towards the Clock Tower, I realized that I definitely wanted to be a part of this situation. Eventually, the crowd from UCSC showed up, and there stood thousands of people in the intersection. Already, my excitement was forging a big smile on my face, and my stomach filled with butterflies.
While the huge crowd convened at the Clock Tower, I took advantage of the intensity that was building (at least within me), to start having a good time. When I first showed up at the Clock Tower, I had noticed a man standing with a few others on the opposite side of the street as the protesters (obviously in counter-protest), holding a sign that read: "REDWOODS OR OPEN BORDERS". I had encountered folks like him before throughout various points in my life - he was simply a RACIST environmentalist. He was clearly there to show his alliance with American policies, and racist groups such as the Minute Men. When I saw this, I was deeply offended as someone who both is of Mexican heritage, and has a love for the Redwood forest. His stance was clearly not very thought through (or logical), but going into that any further would be besides the point. The point is, when I initially felt disrespected by this man, I thought to myself that I needed to see that either him or his sign left the demonstration.
Eventually because of the huge amount of us who flooded the street, the racist man became another face in the crowd, and at this point he stood out less with his obnoxious sign. I decided that the time was ripe to do something about the man - while the day was still young, so to say. Non-expectantly, I jumped up to wrestle the sign out of the asshole's hands, in hopes of tearing it in half. After the aprox. 5 second struggle to get the sign, I was punched / thrown a few feet by a stocky (Latino) dude. Thinking at the moment that the man must be an undercover cop, I scrambled to my feet and disappeared into the crowd. Unfortunately, two comrades who attempted to assist me in the sign-taking were also assaulted. One of them was punched square in the face, twice by the same stocky fellow. The other was also roughed up by the 'do-gooder' as he tried to give me a chance to run away.
Although the sign was merely crumpled-up, and not destroyed (on top of the near citizen's arrest, I'm not the physically strongest person around), I felt somewhat satisfied with the attempts to individually deal with threats within the crowd. Regardless of all rational behind my efforts, I sure as hell wasn't gonna let a racist comfortably spout his rhetoric - not in my presence.
Throughout 99% of the demonstration, I was not among friends, but instead by myself amongst strangers in the crowd. Mostly this was due to the fact that I had to escape at the beginning to avoid a beat-down (and consequently lost the two people I knew there), but also because I attempted to 'feel out' the crowd and hopefully spark intensity in situations if they were to arise. Throughout the first half-hour, I was approached individually by close to 10 'organizers' pertaining to the fact that I was wearing a mask to conceal my identity. I was wearing a mask to prevent my identification amongst the hundreds of video-cameras filming within the crowd, and any possible police cameras, (not to mention the CCTV cameras lining the avenue).
Some of the 'problems' that were inherent in my concealing of my identity - according to the 'organizers' - were:
"I was giving the wrong impression to the police, and other authorities",
"we're not trying to hide anything from anyone"
"you giving off a negative vibe"
but most of the comments revolved around the fact that I wasn't part of 'the organization' or that I was misrepresenting their organization.
From various comments, it was implied that because I 'had a different agenda', or was part of an 'organization foreign to their knowledge', that my presence would only act as a distraction to the 'organizers' own agenda.
To be honest, I was kind of sad after the second or third 'organizer' approached me and asked me to "either take off my mask or leave". To most of the brief encounters with the 'organizers', I merely responded with "That's cool, I understand. I just won't stand next to you if you're not comfortable with my presence..."
Perhaps the most permeant aspect of these encounters, were the assumed roles that I was to play if I decided I wanted to merely stand amongst the crowd of protesters. When I arrived at the demonstration, my identity was lost (in the 'organizers' eyes), and I became merely one more body to be utilized in the mass statement that the 'organizers' were trying to make. The atmosphere created by the pushy 'organizers' (some literally acting as road blocks to control the path of the crowd), was one in which I - and I'm most certain many others also - did not feel free to do what I pleased while I attempted to express my discontent. If I wasn't being physically blocked from the sidewalk and the left-side of the street, I wouldn't of herded into San Lorenzo Park with the rest of crowd, as the 'organizers' had already planned for us. There is much to be said on this topic, but I'll leave it at this: in the attempt to disrupt 'business as usual' and to protest the disregard for undocumented workers, the least that could have been done would have been to NOT sit in a public park which made the job of the police and other bureaucrats easy. I would have loved to remained a nuisance to those who were busy at work processing 'illegal aliens' and other 'criminals' at the County Jail and Court House, only 30 yards away (and I probably would have remained in the streets, if not "re-directed" by the 'organizers'). Are we so subservient to all forms of authority that we need 'organizers' directing us in our every move at a demonstration?
By far the most disturbing moment for me was observed as the massive crowd entered San Lorenzo Park. To the left, was a line of 'organizers' BLOCKING OFF ALL PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC TOWARDS THE COURT HOUSE! They stood closely together, linked at the arms, showing a greater force of authority than even the line of 6-8 police men standing in front of the entrance to the Court House. At that point, I was pretty upset, but had no way of expressing my outrage with what was happening. By the time the march reached the park, it was pretty much dead in my eyes as far as causing any disruption or ripples in 'business as usual'.
As the crowd dispersed into the park, I managed to run up a hill of ice-plant to get within 50 yards of the line of police, and stand with both middle-fingers raised at them, yelling "fuck you! fuck all of you! I hate everyone of you!". This moment of me standing alone on that hill sort of epitomized the day for me. I had to run outside of these boundaries (both physical and mental) that the 'organizers' had created in order to speak my rage, and to show my discontent.
I suspect that this sort of frustration with authoritarian roles amongst "revolutionaries", is what 'Brian' has voiced in his letter to the Brown Berets.
By no means am I trying to assert that at this point I view the Brown Berets or any other 'organizers of the people' an enemy. But, if someone tries to stop me from doing what I feel is necessary for my empowerment, and my liberation, I will treat them as the cops that they are.
fighting the good fight,
and keepin it real opposite tha police,
-- an anarchist stranger in Santa Cruz"
First off, I must say this is quite a tornado to be stepping into at this point. But I would like to add a few of my own observations of the Mayday demonstration, and hopefully clarify some points made earlier concerning the roles of the 'revolutionary organizers'.
Second, you can save all the racist mud-slinging, as I am in fact NOT "a middle-class, privileged, white kid from Santa Cruz". I don't actually think it's relevant if I am or not, but I thought I'd save you all the time that you wasted discrediting 'Brian' because of your assumptions.
I personally decided to take part in the Mayday demonstration in downtown Santa Cruz. There were several factors going into the demonstration that made me excited to be in downtown Santa Cruz during the day's events. I most definitely found myself appreciating the effort and time that some people took to come voice their opposition to America's war on "illegal" 'immigrants', undocumented workers, and other undesirables of society.
I also decided to immerse myself into the crowd, but perhaps not for all of the same reasons that most did. While I whole-heartedly embrace the need for dissent surrounding the increasingly repressive 'immigrant' policies of this country, I also hold with me an urgency that is integral to who I am, and what my aspirations in life are. This urgency is my soul needing to resist this society as a whole, and the alienation of modern life. I can not merely 'deal with' or work around the miserable and exploitive conditions of my (our) lives any longer. This would imply an acceptance for the time being, and I'm not going out like that.
So, the way my intentions for attending the event probably differed from other peoples', were that this was more than just a protest against a new policy, or the current conduct of the Amerikkkan government for me. I hoped that the demonstration would amount to a more general and intense situation. I went there with the hopes of fulfilling some of my desires to defy this police state, in a concrete, and physical way. I went there with no intention of becoming part of the 'organized people's movement', but instead as an individual striving to feel alive (if only for a moment), in a world that makes me feel like the living dead. This feeling of life could have taken various forms, but I feel it is irrelevant to state them here now. Regardless of the timeliness, I was there because it was an opportunity to put my passions (and 'politics') to action.
When I first showed up at the Clock Tower downtown, there was maybe 50 people holding signs, waiting for the rest of the community to show up. As the massive crowd coming from the Beach Flats roared through Pacific St. towards the Clock Tower, I realized that I definitely wanted to be a part of this situation. Eventually, the crowd from UCSC showed up, and there stood thousands of people in the intersection. Already, my excitement was forging a big smile on my face, and my stomach filled with butterflies.
While the huge crowd convened at the Clock Tower, I took advantage of the intensity that was building (at least within me), to start having a good time. When I first showed up at the Clock Tower, I had noticed a man standing with a few others on the opposite side of the street as the protesters (obviously in counter-protest), holding a sign that read: "REDWOODS OR OPEN BORDERS". I had encountered folks like him before throughout various points in my life - he was simply a RACIST environmentalist. He was clearly there to show his alliance with American policies, and racist groups such as the Minute Men. When I saw this, I was deeply offended as someone who both is of Mexican heritage, and has a love for the Redwood forest. His stance was clearly not very thought through (or logical), but going into that any further would be besides the point. The point is, when I initially felt disrespected by this man, I thought to myself that I needed to see that either him or his sign left the demonstration.
Eventually because of the huge amount of us who flooded the street, the racist man became another face in the crowd, and at this point he stood out less with his obnoxious sign. I decided that the time was ripe to do something about the man - while the day was still young, so to say. Non-expectantly, I jumped up to wrestle the sign out of the asshole's hands, in hopes of tearing it in half. After the aprox. 5 second struggle to get the sign, I was punched / thrown a few feet by a stocky (Latino) dude. Thinking at the moment that the man must be an undercover cop, I scrambled to my feet and disappeared into the crowd. Unfortunately, two comrades who attempted to assist me in the sign-taking were also assaulted. One of them was punched square in the face, twice by the same stocky fellow. The other was also roughed up by the 'do-gooder' as he tried to give me a chance to run away.
Although the sign was merely crumpled-up, and not destroyed (on top of the near citizen's arrest, I'm not the physically strongest person around), I felt somewhat satisfied with the attempts to individually deal with threats within the crowd. Regardless of all rational behind my efforts, I sure as hell wasn't gonna let a racist comfortably spout his rhetoric - not in my presence.
Throughout 99% of the demonstration, I was not among friends, but instead by myself amongst strangers in the crowd. Mostly this was due to the fact that I had to escape at the beginning to avoid a beat-down (and consequently lost the two people I knew there), but also because I attempted to 'feel out' the crowd and hopefully spark intensity in situations if they were to arise. Throughout the first half-hour, I was approached individually by close to 10 'organizers' pertaining to the fact that I was wearing a mask to conceal my identity. I was wearing a mask to prevent my identification amongst the hundreds of video-cameras filming within the crowd, and any possible police cameras, (not to mention the CCTV cameras lining the avenue).
Some of the 'problems' that were inherent in my concealing of my identity - according to the 'organizers' - were:
"I was giving the wrong impression to the police, and other authorities",
"we're not trying to hide anything from anyone"
"you giving off a negative vibe"
but most of the comments revolved around the fact that I wasn't part of 'the organization' or that I was misrepresenting their organization.
From various comments, it was implied that because I 'had a different agenda', or was part of an 'organization foreign to their knowledge', that my presence would only act as a distraction to the 'organizers' own agenda.
To be honest, I was kind of sad after the second or third 'organizer' approached me and asked me to "either take off my mask or leave". To most of the brief encounters with the 'organizers', I merely responded with "That's cool, I understand. I just won't stand next to you if you're not comfortable with my presence..."
Perhaps the most permeant aspect of these encounters, were the assumed roles that I was to play if I decided I wanted to merely stand amongst the crowd of protesters. When I arrived at the demonstration, my identity was lost (in the 'organizers' eyes), and I became merely one more body to be utilized in the mass statement that the 'organizers' were trying to make. The atmosphere created by the pushy 'organizers' (some literally acting as road blocks to control the path of the crowd), was one in which I - and I'm most certain many others also - did not feel free to do what I pleased while I attempted to express my discontent. If I wasn't being physically blocked from the sidewalk and the left-side of the street, I wouldn't of herded into San Lorenzo Park with the rest of crowd, as the 'organizers' had already planned for us. There is much to be said on this topic, but I'll leave it at this: in the attempt to disrupt 'business as usual' and to protest the disregard for undocumented workers, the least that could have been done would have been to NOT sit in a public park which made the job of the police and other bureaucrats easy. I would have loved to remained a nuisance to those who were busy at work processing 'illegal aliens' and other 'criminals' at the County Jail and Court House, only 30 yards away (and I probably would have remained in the streets, if not "re-directed" by the 'organizers'). Are we so subservient to all forms of authority that we need 'organizers' directing us in our every move at a demonstration?
By far the most disturbing moment for me was observed as the massive crowd entered San Lorenzo Park. To the left, was a line of 'organizers' BLOCKING OFF ALL PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC TOWARDS THE COURT HOUSE! They stood closely together, linked at the arms, showing a greater force of authority than even the line of 6-8 police men standing in front of the entrance to the Court House. At that point, I was pretty upset, but had no way of expressing my outrage with what was happening. By the time the march reached the park, it was pretty much dead in my eyes as far as causing any disruption or ripples in 'business as usual'.
As the crowd dispersed into the park, I managed to run up a hill of ice-plant to get within 50 yards of the line of police, and stand with both middle-fingers raised at them, yelling "fuck you! fuck all of you! I hate everyone of you!". This moment of me standing alone on that hill sort of epitomized the day for me. I had to run outside of these boundaries (both physical and mental) that the 'organizers' had created in order to speak my rage, and to show my discontent.
I suspect that this sort of frustration with authoritarian roles amongst "revolutionaries", is what 'Brian' has voiced in his letter to the Brown Berets.
By no means am I trying to assert that at this point I view the Brown Berets or any other 'organizers of the people' an enemy. But, if someone tries to stop me from doing what I feel is necessary for my empowerment, and my liberation, I will treat them as the cops that they are.
fighting the good fight,
and keepin it real opposite tha police,
-- an anarchist stranger in Santa Cruz"
Brian,
In response to a few of your comments and questions:
I refer to anyone who discusses what a group does without being involved with it in some way as a theorist. So I would be a theorist if I decided to critique the actions of Black Bloc, because although I've worked with them at times, I'm not involved in their actions or their decision-making. You could be totally active in other groups, or you could be completely interested in debate and discussion. You are correct: I don't know you. But I do know that you don't work with us.
That doesn't mean outsiders never have anything worth contributing, or that they aren't impacted in some way by our actions, especially if they attend an event that we are involved with. But, considering that we are neither capable nor interested in appeasing everyone, it does mean that I'm honestly not as concerned about how offended outsiders are by us as I would be if the complaints came from our immediate community. They are, again, not relevant in that context. I replied to your statements before and am writing this letter now for two reasons: one, because no matter where they are printed or voiced, it's a good idea to clear up misinformation, and two, because they were posted in an open, public forum, which also includes Watsonville residents.
I never stated that the Brown Berets speak for Watsonville. I said we exist because this community wanted us to exist. We don't sit around and decide what is best for Watsonville, and we don't ever say that we speak for everyone else here. But, this was a group that was formed internally in the 1960s and again in 1994. Of course there are people and groups that don't agree with the Berets. There are about 50,000 people here; getting them to all agree on what is good or bad would be an act that might force me to believe in miracles. What I can say is that when farmworkers, students, etc. come us with reports of police mistreatment, military recruiter harassment, or any other problem, it becomes our problem. We surveyed hundreds of teenagers to find out what they want us to do for them. When we have an event, local businesses all over the city hang our flyers in their windows, and donate food and supplies to help make it a success. At the risk of repetition, critiques from within Watsonville carry a great deal more weight than anyone from outside the community.
I didn't respond to your issues about the graffiti clean-up or the political concerns that night because I was exhausted. I had originally only wanted to reply to a few items and write more the next day. I was at the graffiti clean-up and had no problem with it. Personally, I have no problem either with tagging or with people wanting to clean it up. Several of the people at the clean-up were the residents of the tagging locations. Many were also students and classmates of the taggers who didn't want to see swears and gang slogans on their garage doors/walls/etc.
Rangers that are also lifeguards wear a blue uniform that looks similar to a regular police officer. From what I heard, the ranger did go to help lighten the load on the bridge. That doesn't address everything you brought up, but I wasn't there and don't think I should try to respond too much to this.
Non-authoritarian ways of preventing gang violence during the walkouts went from simply asking, "Is this the reason you guys are out here?" to Berets physically placing themselves between gang members, giving them the option of continuing the attack but knowing that they would be harming non-combatants in the process. I don't know who from the Berets told you that were were supposed to play the role of police to prevent the police from coming in. That's the first I've ever heard of it, and I would be extremely surprised to hear it from any of my compadres. We are a large group, and that might have been someone's interpretation, but I'm skeptical.
As for the Berets involvement with politics: there are many Berets that have no trust or love for - or dealings with - politics at all, there are some that are heavily involved because that's what they truly believe will force the power structure to address real-life immediate and long-term injustices in the community, some feel it depends on the situation. My own views are growing and changing in different directions in this area, and I am learning a lot from my compadres. Again, speaking personally, I think that this combination is a strength because we are dealing with our concerns in the way that feels true to each individual and attacks a problem in a variety of ways. Obviously, you fundamentally disagree with that philosophy, but if we forced everyone in the Berets to follow your particular views of what revolutionary thought should be, forbade them from deciding if they want to interact with police, and went on a no-holds-barred constant attack on the power structure, I don't see us as being anything other than just as repressive as the police. My family and friends know police abuse and brutality, and I have no trust for the structure, but I do know good individuals that are or have been police officers. I'm not interested in dehumanizing people because they made a decision I strongly disagree with. You say you don't work with formal structures but would work with individuals, perhaps that is a similar philosophy.
I have never been a "group" person. I am very much a loner and don't believe in following the dictates of one religion, political party, non-profit, or whatever. What I discovered with the Berets is that this is a vibrant and culture-embracing group of activists and friends that will never expect me to give up my sense of self, or the right to make my own decisions, or to disagree with other members. Because of this, and because this is also a group that actually gets out and does something while others are still debating their public images, the Brown Berets have earned the loyalty of very independent, strong-minded and strong-willed individuals.
We are constantly on watch to prevent ourselves from becoming a police-like organization, both internally and with the larger community. But we are an organization. If you're against working with us as an organization, there's little chance of you seeing how we function and deal with anything, including any of the issues you brought up. Your decision to not come to the group and discuss this with us, instead posting public criticisms about us, our actions, and our intentions, doesn't exactly inspire humble appreciation. Rather, it came across a lot more like the unsubstantiated attacks we weather from letters to newspapers, right-wing bloggers, and irresponsible reporters. We are also not going to change to suit any one person's interpretation of what makes a "real" revolutionary group, though valid points are considered. So ultimately, it sounds like the Brown Berets are going to continue to offend you as long as we exist. Do you have a different conclusion?
Marisol
In response to a few of your comments and questions:
I refer to anyone who discusses what a group does without being involved with it in some way as a theorist. So I would be a theorist if I decided to critique the actions of Black Bloc, because although I've worked with them at times, I'm not involved in their actions or their decision-making. You could be totally active in other groups, or you could be completely interested in debate and discussion. You are correct: I don't know you. But I do know that you don't work with us.
That doesn't mean outsiders never have anything worth contributing, or that they aren't impacted in some way by our actions, especially if they attend an event that we are involved with. But, considering that we are neither capable nor interested in appeasing everyone, it does mean that I'm honestly not as concerned about how offended outsiders are by us as I would be if the complaints came from our immediate community. They are, again, not relevant in that context. I replied to your statements before and am writing this letter now for two reasons: one, because no matter where they are printed or voiced, it's a good idea to clear up misinformation, and two, because they were posted in an open, public forum, which also includes Watsonville residents.
I never stated that the Brown Berets speak for Watsonville. I said we exist because this community wanted us to exist. We don't sit around and decide what is best for Watsonville, and we don't ever say that we speak for everyone else here. But, this was a group that was formed internally in the 1960s and again in 1994. Of course there are people and groups that don't agree with the Berets. There are about 50,000 people here; getting them to all agree on what is good or bad would be an act that might force me to believe in miracles. What I can say is that when farmworkers, students, etc. come us with reports of police mistreatment, military recruiter harassment, or any other problem, it becomes our problem. We surveyed hundreds of teenagers to find out what they want us to do for them. When we have an event, local businesses all over the city hang our flyers in their windows, and donate food and supplies to help make it a success. At the risk of repetition, critiques from within Watsonville carry a great deal more weight than anyone from outside the community.
I didn't respond to your issues about the graffiti clean-up or the political concerns that night because I was exhausted. I had originally only wanted to reply to a few items and write more the next day. I was at the graffiti clean-up and had no problem with it. Personally, I have no problem either with tagging or with people wanting to clean it up. Several of the people at the clean-up were the residents of the tagging locations. Many were also students and classmates of the taggers who didn't want to see swears and gang slogans on their garage doors/walls/etc.
Rangers that are also lifeguards wear a blue uniform that looks similar to a regular police officer. From what I heard, the ranger did go to help lighten the load on the bridge. That doesn't address everything you brought up, but I wasn't there and don't think I should try to respond too much to this.
Non-authoritarian ways of preventing gang violence during the walkouts went from simply asking, "Is this the reason you guys are out here?" to Berets physically placing themselves between gang members, giving them the option of continuing the attack but knowing that they would be harming non-combatants in the process. I don't know who from the Berets told you that were were supposed to play the role of police to prevent the police from coming in. That's the first I've ever heard of it, and I would be extremely surprised to hear it from any of my compadres. We are a large group, and that might have been someone's interpretation, but I'm skeptical.
As for the Berets involvement with politics: there are many Berets that have no trust or love for - or dealings with - politics at all, there are some that are heavily involved because that's what they truly believe will force the power structure to address real-life immediate and long-term injustices in the community, some feel it depends on the situation. My own views are growing and changing in different directions in this area, and I am learning a lot from my compadres. Again, speaking personally, I think that this combination is a strength because we are dealing with our concerns in the way that feels true to each individual and attacks a problem in a variety of ways. Obviously, you fundamentally disagree with that philosophy, but if we forced everyone in the Berets to follow your particular views of what revolutionary thought should be, forbade them from deciding if they want to interact with police, and went on a no-holds-barred constant attack on the power structure, I don't see us as being anything other than just as repressive as the police. My family and friends know police abuse and brutality, and I have no trust for the structure, but I do know good individuals that are or have been police officers. I'm not interested in dehumanizing people because they made a decision I strongly disagree with. You say you don't work with formal structures but would work with individuals, perhaps that is a similar philosophy.
I have never been a "group" person. I am very much a loner and don't believe in following the dictates of one religion, political party, non-profit, or whatever. What I discovered with the Berets is that this is a vibrant and culture-embracing group of activists and friends that will never expect me to give up my sense of self, or the right to make my own decisions, or to disagree with other members. Because of this, and because this is also a group that actually gets out and does something while others are still debating their public images, the Brown Berets have earned the loyalty of very independent, strong-minded and strong-willed individuals.
We are constantly on watch to prevent ourselves from becoming a police-like organization, both internally and with the larger community. But we are an organization. If you're against working with us as an organization, there's little chance of you seeing how we function and deal with anything, including any of the issues you brought up. Your decision to not come to the group and discuss this with us, instead posting public criticisms about us, our actions, and our intentions, doesn't exactly inspire humble appreciation. Rather, it came across a lot more like the unsubstantiated attacks we weather from letters to newspapers, right-wing bloggers, and irresponsible reporters. We are also not going to change to suit any one person's interpretation of what makes a "real" revolutionary group, though valid points are considered. So ultimately, it sounds like the Brown Berets are going to continue to offend you as long as we exist. Do you have a different conclusion?
Marisol
with regards to the second commenter, maybe they thought you were one of these guys? This is a photo from the Chronicle today, and the caption says that the guy with the Acorn shirt is a immigration law reform advocate, while the guy in the mask is at a (counter) protest against undocumented immigration. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/07/INGRFILBL11.DTL
Anyway, I think that it is important to realize that lots of people in the movement could be political moderates. This doesn't mean that everyone there has to put their style in line with the center of the group, but it is worthwhile considering that there are some nonradicals who don't agree with your approach. Given that anarchist open-borders isn't on the table yet, maybe a moderate approach to a phase I of achieving immigration amnesty is the best tactic for setting up conditions for a phase II, where workers can achieve gains through striking, like they did in the 30s and with Cesar Chavez.
If you want to get started today, the latest UFW fundraising letter described this practice in the strawberry fields where they use this tractor machine called they called the pace setter. This is basically a truck where the pickers are supposed to carry their filled boxes of strawberries to, and then pick up an empty box. The tractor is set to move down the rows of strawberries at a set pace, and the workers have to pick at a speed so they can fill the boxes and carry them to this truck thing, and then jog back to where they had stopped picking in the row. If they can't keep up, then they will be 100m behind, and it is obvious that they are slowest, or they leave plants unpicked, or have to spend even more energy running up to the box machine. Other workers, even in hectic jobs, can take 5 min breaks by a water cooler, but this practice is like pre-20th century industrial era assembly line or textile mill setups.
Anyway, I think that it is important to realize that lots of people in the movement could be political moderates. This doesn't mean that everyone there has to put their style in line with the center of the group, but it is worthwhile considering that there are some nonradicals who don't agree with your approach. Given that anarchist open-borders isn't on the table yet, maybe a moderate approach to a phase I of achieving immigration amnesty is the best tactic for setting up conditions for a phase II, where workers can achieve gains through striking, like they did in the 30s and with Cesar Chavez.
If you want to get started today, the latest UFW fundraising letter described this practice in the strawberry fields where they use this tractor machine called they called the pace setter. This is basically a truck where the pickers are supposed to carry their filled boxes of strawberries to, and then pick up an empty box. The tractor is set to move down the rows of strawberries at a set pace, and the workers have to pick at a speed so they can fill the boxes and carry them to this truck thing, and then jog back to where they had stopped picking in the row. If they can't keep up, then they will be 100m behind, and it is obvious that they are slowest, or they leave plants unpicked, or have to spend even more energy running up to the box machine. Other workers, even in hectic jobs, can take 5 min breaks by a water cooler, but this practice is like pre-20th century industrial era assembly line or textile mill setups.
Brian thinks he is anti-authoritarian, but what he really is expressing opposition to is power. Those of us who believe in organizing, which is basically empowerment of the community, are trying to create power for people. Brian seems to view the creation of power itself as inherently authoritarian.
This is a typical anarchist illusion. If you organize, say, to oppose the police or the government, and you are successful in doing so, the police and the government will approach you and try to negotiate peace with you. Thats how it works, in "reality". Anarchists like Brian are so used to being weak and ineffectual that the cops/state has no need to actually come to the table. Hence, its not surprising that anyone who is actually successful in empowering themselves or their community, in bringing the state and the police to the table, strikes them as authoritarian or sell out or whatever.
This is a typical anarchist illusion. If you organize, say, to oppose the police or the government, and you are successful in doing so, the police and the government will approach you and try to negotiate peace with you. Thats how it works, in "reality". Anarchists like Brian are so used to being weak and ineffectual that the cops/state has no need to actually come to the table. Hence, its not surprising that anyone who is actually successful in empowering themselves or their community, in bringing the state and the police to the table, strikes them as authoritarian or sell out or whatever.
I feel that Brian has a lot to learn from the Brown Berets.
While I was reading some of the many very good comments made here I was reminded of a story told to me by a member of the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) named Jim Little. In the 1960s the youth organization of the SWP, among other things, was very successful in organizing the anti-war movement and had also done some recruiting in the Puerto Rican community in New York.
Suddenly one day the newly recruited Puerto Rican cadre called Jim and told him that in response to neo-nazis that had set up a headquarters in their neighborhood they had brought out the community, captured the nazis, and together with the community they were building a gallows on the street to hang them. Jim told them to stop everything and rounded up some other party members to go down and stop the hangings from happening. They succeeded and a total public relations disaster that would have been coupled with government repression was narrowly averted.
Now I suppose for Brian this would break several of his rules about how leadership should not be leadership and how that leadership should not police itself or the community. But revolution and mass movements of the people are not a game. Bad tactics at the wrong time do not make revolutions, they only get good revolutionaries killed.
Brian's critique shows some the glaring weaknesses of Anarchism.
Steven Argue,
Liberation News
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
While I was reading some of the many very good comments made here I was reminded of a story told to me by a member of the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) named Jim Little. In the 1960s the youth organization of the SWP, among other things, was very successful in organizing the anti-war movement and had also done some recruiting in the Puerto Rican community in New York.
Suddenly one day the newly recruited Puerto Rican cadre called Jim and told him that in response to neo-nazis that had set up a headquarters in their neighborhood they had brought out the community, captured the nazis, and together with the community they were building a gallows on the street to hang them. Jim told them to stop everything and rounded up some other party members to go down and stop the hangings from happening. They succeeded and a total public relations disaster that would have been coupled with government repression was narrowly averted.
Now I suppose for Brian this would break several of his rules about how leadership should not be leadership and how that leadership should not police itself or the community. But revolution and mass movements of the people are not a game. Bad tactics at the wrong time do not make revolutions, they only get good revolutionaries killed.
Brian's critique shows some the glaring weaknesses of Anarchism.
Steven Argue,
Liberation News
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
...and a coward if you're so damn pompish and arrogant as to cast your stones here on indybay and not even have the decency to meet with the Berets. And then to post an out-of-context thread from some board of some unknown origin... "wah, wah --everyone's ganging up on me on indybay, wah wah help help me!!!"
i still think working alongside police is no good (and theres no such thing as a good cop either, 'cause in the end, they're still working under the gov't and the white mans sistema anyway, the one we've been trying to get away from, if our people want a role in "enforcement" then they should consider forming a warrior society i.e. Harmony Keepers) however your childish, ignorant games just stooped to you a pretty low level... and for that you should just go away. Ya know, kinda like the minutemen. Go away, where your ideologies might be warmly received, like EUROPE.
!IXACHILANKAH TIAHUI!
i still think working alongside police is no good (and theres no such thing as a good cop either, 'cause in the end, they're still working under the gov't and the white mans sistema anyway, the one we've been trying to get away from, if our people want a role in "enforcement" then they should consider forming a warrior society i.e. Harmony Keepers) however your childish, ignorant games just stooped to you a pretty low level... and for that you should just go away. Ya know, kinda like the minutemen. Go away, where your ideologies might be warmly received, like EUROPE.
!IXACHILANKAH TIAHUI!
To read my comments go here:
http://pagesincolor.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=43&entryid=43
http://pagesincolor.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=43&entryid=43
For more information:
http://www.pagesincolor.com
1) 'Brian', you say you're supportive of the Berets. If you are sincere, I hope you recognize that you may be doing more harm to the Berets by posting in an online forum like this rather than speaking privately with them about these issues.
2) You say that your email isn't working anymore. I suggest you post an email that does work so you can engage in communication. Something is fishy about you only wanting to communicate on this forum. It makes me question your intentions - it makes me wonder if your real motive is to discredit them rather than actually engage in constructive dialog about their tactics.
3) I think you need to be more transparent, 'Brian'. The fact that you won't give your background, such as your previous organizing history, makes you fishy as well. I'm not surprised that everyone is saying, 'who the fuck is 'Brian',' because you aren't explaining yourself. You have to recognize the long history of government repression against groups like the Berets. When you fail to identify yourself, denounce them publicly, refuse to talk in private, and don't have a working email, you make yourself look very suspicious. I've lived in Santa Cruz County for almost my whole life, and have been very involvement in various movements, including anarchist-leaning actions, and I've never heard of a 'Brian Carwell.' Is that even your name?
4) I think it was a bad move to post another thread. You should have just commented in your initial one. Posting another thread is your way of prioritizing your voice over others', which I think is very disrespectful, and hierarchical. Your voice has no greater value than anyone elses.
5) While I think you pose some interesting questions that should be discussed, I recognize why people are so frusterated/suspicious with you. You basically came out of nowhere to criticize an organization that has a lot of respect in this community. Criticism is nothin' new for those of us that organize in Santa Cruz County, but usually any criticism that is meant to be constructive is dealt with in a more respectful and transparent manner.
6) For those of you (namely, Steve Argue) that use 'Brian' as an example of 'what's wrong with anarchism,' I'd like to remind you that anarchism is not a specific ideology that one person can claim as their own. There's no anarchist 'party line.' People have very different views of what anarchism is, and people act out what they may see as their anarchist politics in very different ways. Just because someone wears a black mask and black clothes while they flip off cops doesn't make them more of an anarchist than a plad-wearing worker organizing in their work place for more worker-control, or a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt fighting for tenant rights. I'd urge folks to look past the anarchist aesthetic and recognize the multiplicity of forms that anarchist politics takes.
2) You say that your email isn't working anymore. I suggest you post an email that does work so you can engage in communication. Something is fishy about you only wanting to communicate on this forum. It makes me question your intentions - it makes me wonder if your real motive is to discredit them rather than actually engage in constructive dialog about their tactics.
3) I think you need to be more transparent, 'Brian'. The fact that you won't give your background, such as your previous organizing history, makes you fishy as well. I'm not surprised that everyone is saying, 'who the fuck is 'Brian',' because you aren't explaining yourself. You have to recognize the long history of government repression against groups like the Berets. When you fail to identify yourself, denounce them publicly, refuse to talk in private, and don't have a working email, you make yourself look very suspicious. I've lived in Santa Cruz County for almost my whole life, and have been very involvement in various movements, including anarchist-leaning actions, and I've never heard of a 'Brian Carwell.' Is that even your name?
4) I think it was a bad move to post another thread. You should have just commented in your initial one. Posting another thread is your way of prioritizing your voice over others', which I think is very disrespectful, and hierarchical. Your voice has no greater value than anyone elses.
5) While I think you pose some interesting questions that should be discussed, I recognize why people are so frusterated/suspicious with you. You basically came out of nowhere to criticize an organization that has a lot of respect in this community. Criticism is nothin' new for those of us that organize in Santa Cruz County, but usually any criticism that is meant to be constructive is dealt with in a more respectful and transparent manner.
6) For those of you (namely, Steve Argue) that use 'Brian' as an example of 'what's wrong with anarchism,' I'd like to remind you that anarchism is not a specific ideology that one person can claim as their own. There's no anarchist 'party line.' People have very different views of what anarchism is, and people act out what they may see as their anarchist politics in very different ways. Just because someone wears a black mask and black clothes while they flip off cops doesn't make them more of an anarchist than a plad-wearing worker organizing in their work place for more worker-control, or a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt fighting for tenant rights. I'd urge folks to look past the anarchist aesthetic and recognize the multiplicity of forms that anarchist politics takes.
Go away, where your ideologies might be warmly received, like EUROPE.
---------------------
This isn't contradictory information, but the dominant culture of the U.S., Mexico and Canada are all european. French people went into Canada and Haiti, english controlled early U.S. colonization, and Spain controlled Mexico. Indigenous cultures of most of Mexico outside of Chiapas are repressed just like the indigenous cultures of the U.S., while the government, the police, the leading companies, and indeed, most people in Mexico, have a strongly spanish-european influenced culture. This is personally why I don't think the argument relating to the 1845 position of the border is very effective, because most indigenous groups at that time hadn't been consulted or ceded the land yet.
---------------------
This isn't contradictory information, but the dominant culture of the U.S., Mexico and Canada are all european. French people went into Canada and Haiti, english controlled early U.S. colonization, and Spain controlled Mexico. Indigenous cultures of most of Mexico outside of Chiapas are repressed just like the indigenous cultures of the U.S., while the government, the police, the leading companies, and indeed, most people in Mexico, have a strongly spanish-european influenced culture. This is personally why I don't think the argument relating to the 1845 position of the border is very effective, because most indigenous groups at that time hadn't been consulted or ceded the land yet.
The following is a letter I emailed to the Brown Beret's to address specific problems I've had with their actions. It is meant to be a starting point in a constructive dialogue.
An Open Letter to the Brown Berets, part3
I am writing to address some issues regarding the role that the Brown Berets have taken on in the recent marches around the immigration struggle. I will also write about a few other criticisms I have of the activities of the group in general. I bring these up for the Beret's to discuss. You can respond if you like, ignore me or do as you please with my words.
I'm offering these words of critique to those who may find a life lesson in them. When I offer critique it is meant to offer some analysis and address what I see as stupid planning between ones practice and ones stated goals. Specifically, I am referring to the goal of acting as catalyst and actualizer of revolutionary activity. For a short definition of what I mean by revolution, I'll state that I am not merely wanting a change of the guard, or a "dictatorship of the proletariat", or any other authoritarian rubbish. When I speak of revolution, I am referring to a transformation of relationships, in order to destroying the upper class, hierarchy, I am talking about a world where people and others who inhabit this planet are able to create life on their own terms and not someone else's.
My impression is that most, if not everyone in the Brown Beret's are professional Victoms. What this means exactly, I imagine may differ greatly from person to person. But I'll use my simple definition as the point of reference in this letter.
My criticisms are as follows...
Brown Berets Collaborating With The Police or Acting As Police
Examples:
1) A Brown Beret organizer talking to the police chief of Watsonville over the phone before the second student walkout day to inform the police chief how to deal with the students and who to watch.
2) During the second day of student walkouts, Beret's went to a variety of student's meeting spots and directed them into the plaza inorder to confront police.
3) During marches Brown Beret's direct crowds so as to cause social unrest
I understood the intention to be that Beret's were trying to prevolk a repeat of the previous days brutality of students. Certainly the defeat by police in the previous walk-out was unpleasant for many Brown Beret's ego. My criticism of the approach taken by the Brown Beret's in this scenario was that rather than encourage violent opposition and revolt, the Beret's took on the role of vanguardists managing revolt. In the same way that unions act as power brokers with the owner/boss of a factory or business, the Beret's acted as intermediaries and ultimately as recuperators of revolt. Anytime there is negotiating with the police, it is clear that revolutionary activity has ceased.
It makes sense that the police were interested in the Beret's information. The Beret's were able to do more effectively what the police couldn't, control the crowds of students. This was effectively done by sending Beret's to each of the students meeting locations, then convincing them to concentrate in the plaza. and reporting back to the police which students where in charge.
At least one person with the Beret's claimed to have radicalized a thousand kids at these demonstrations. I would say that the first demonstration that the Beret's organized intimidated students, they (the students) took the steps towards retaliation. It was the Beret's that cut off this process of radicalization. They did this by taking on the student leadership and directing the activities of the students by fear of force, rather than letting them, think about, discuss, and experiment with their own activities. Revolution is a process of empowerment, creativity and self-directed activity, not intimidation of the leadership/follower roles of this society. It is instigation to revolt, trying to control people that will feed possibilities of insurrection.
4) In Santa Cruz on May Day, at the San Lorenzo park. A racist environmentalist carried a sign "Redwoods or Open Borders?" Despite this guy's poor analysis, some Brown Beret's attempted to encourage people to harass him , so as to "distract from the speakers." Aside from the fact that the speakers were monotonous, it's disappointing to see not just tolerance of people like this man.
5) The police told the Brown Beret's to control and clear out the pedestrian bridge at San Lorenzo Park on May 1st because there were "too many" people on the bridge. The Beret's then proceeded to thin out the crowd.
The fact that Beret's would rather fight with the racist , says a lot about those organizers politics. It seems like they've swallowed some liberal-hippy notions about how we should "all just get along."
Personally, I'm pretty discouraged with the same old rhetoric, boring marches, and drawn-out rallies. Is it any wonder that people started to leave shortly after they reached San Lorenzo Park? Chanting "Si se puede" in the park isn't very interesting or relevant.
I understand that not everyone there is interested in social conflict and that this event may not be the preferred moment for that activity for some people. But I am critiquing the Beret's roles as revolutionaries/informants. If you want revolution, you cannot act against it. All of these examples and the critiques that follow I'm arguing to be counter-revolutionary acts. If you want a self-organized society, you need to allow space for people to act as they see fit (as long as it doesn't impinge on you or your fiends), not herding people around or other authoritarian behaviors.
Some Thoughts on Beret's Taking Position Within City Government
"When you take on the function of providing social services (through charity and other offerings) - where the state has left off - you cease to be a counter-force to the system, but rather a buttress to reinforce it. By providing scraps for the exploited to survive on, you hold back the disorder of the marginalized and any subsequent insurgency."
I've heard a little about Beret's taking up various positions within the local political racket of Watsonville to try to influence political decisions in a more confrontational direction.
I agree with the Berets in Los Angeles who have chosen to reject the government. By joining the insurgency, all radical content gets drained from ones aspirations. People get caught up in trying to get scraps from those who hold a hegemony on power. It becomes a game of trying to get more and more adherents to a cause (an abstraction) and to present oneself as a representative of "the people," in an attempt at finding band-aids on our gaping societal wound. If one accepts that we cannot join the power structure and that revolution is necessary, politics must be abandoned. Those who join the bureaucracy, are buried in it.
Graffiti Cleanup
The other thing I overheard was mention of graffiti cleanup. To me graffiti is important to encourage rather than discourage. It's a form of defiance, rejecting the sacredness of property. It is a sign on the facade of stability that all is not well. so go paint some ones beamer.
Sneaking around at night, avoiding the police, climbing into the oddest places to scrawl one's tag. There's a lot in that that is subversive, even if the message written isn't "radical." And certainly it encompasses using skills we all could use more practice in.
Closing
I think it is good that the Beret's initiated demonstrations to the immigration bill, to increase the social clash and move towards a more conflictual relationship with the defenders of the social order. I'm opposed to the role that the Beret's took in directing and informing the cops on crowds. Anyone who is claiming authority and telling others what to do is a cop,
All these various examples of roles taken (acting as representatives of struggle, controlling demonstrations, negotiating with those in power, etc.) are all examples of vanguardist political methods of the 60's which failed to produce a better world. The hierarchical relationships are still maintained within these models.
By writing this it is a confirmation that I see the Brown Beret's as a very significant antagonist group that has a lot of potential. The Beret's I've met tended to be sincere and dedicated to violent conflict with the government. I can't think of a public organization within Santa Cruz County that is as intimidating as the Beret's.
I want to reiterate that my criticism is meant as a I offer these words because I whant you to know what the Beret's are realy up to, but I don't think the means sometimes used are congruent with what I think are the intended ends. I offer my assessment of the situation with the intention of provoking contradictions that may prevent individuals working with the Beret's from actualizing their goals.
"Brian Carwell"
An invisible insurgent
I strongly urge all of my friends and allies to stop giving this disruptor any of your energy. Nobody in Santa Cruz knows or has ever heard of Brian Carwell nor has he posted on Indymedia in the past based on a search. Also, what anarchist do you know who goes by such a name or who runs around talking about "revolution"? ;-D
Congratulation Brown Berets and their allied community members, who are many! You have succeeded in scaring the government-sponsored disruptors to the extent that they feel the need to make up long, complicated lies about you. You are not alone! Many great people who have come before you have also been the subject of these kind of attacks:
-Cesar Chavez (he still gets it!! Even while he tries to rest in his grave!)
-Dolores Huerta! (Alive, still rockin' and still being harrassed!)
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
-Malcolm X
-Chico Mendes (from Brasil)
-Judy Bari
-Angela Davis
and on and on...
If you are unfamiliar with these ideas or people, please read up on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro
It's got some excellent information and links, especially those in relation to the FBI's attacks on the Black Panthers.
Congratulation Brown Berets and their allied community members, who are many! You have succeeded in scaring the government-sponsored disruptors to the extent that they feel the need to make up long, complicated lies about you. You are not alone! Many great people who have come before you have also been the subject of these kind of attacks:
-Cesar Chavez (he still gets it!! Even while he tries to rest in his grave!)
-Dolores Huerta! (Alive, still rockin' and still being harrassed!)
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
-Malcolm X
-Chico Mendes (from Brasil)
-Judy Bari
-Angela Davis
and on and on...
If you are unfamiliar with these ideas or people, please read up on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro
It's got some excellent information and links, especially those in relation to the FBI's attacks on the Black Panthers.
Brian says, “The BB I've met have a pretty negative attitude towards gangs. I know there are a lot of problems with most gangs (hierarchy, sexism, hero worship, machismo, drugs, etc.) but the reason gangs are popular is because they work for those people.”
Gangs “work for those people?” I find it interesting that Brian is more critical of the Brown Berets that are working for a better world than the lumpen gang elements that increase the misery with their violence and peddling poisons for a profit.
I have good friends in gangs, but gangs are a problem on many different levels, including the fact that they have worked with the CIA in bringing cocaine into neighborhoods, which in turn has helped finance the CIA’s dirty wars against the people of the world.
While the poverty found in the communities of color of racist America plays its role in influencing youth to seek incomes through gang affiliations and criminal activities, this does not mean that we should just have a permissive attitude towards gangs. Far from “working for these people” those in gangs face many problems including high rates of incarceration, drug addiction, and violence.
Today American corporate culture purposely promotes a pro-gang message to the youth of communities of color. It is no surprise to me that when communities get organized and start rising up that they want to get rid of the ugly graffiti tags as part of promoting a positive alternative. This is because gangs do not, as Brian stated, “work for those people”.
Gangs “work for those people?” I find it interesting that Brian is more critical of the Brown Berets that are working for a better world than the lumpen gang elements that increase the misery with their violence and peddling poisons for a profit.
I have good friends in gangs, but gangs are a problem on many different levels, including the fact that they have worked with the CIA in bringing cocaine into neighborhoods, which in turn has helped finance the CIA’s dirty wars against the people of the world.
While the poverty found in the communities of color of racist America plays its role in influencing youth to seek incomes through gang affiliations and criminal activities, this does not mean that we should just have a permissive attitude towards gangs. Far from “working for these people” those in gangs face many problems including high rates of incarceration, drug addiction, and violence.
Today American corporate culture purposely promotes a pro-gang message to the youth of communities of color. It is no surprise to me that when communities get organized and start rising up that they want to get rid of the ugly graffiti tags as part of promoting a positive alternative. This is because gangs do not, as Brian stated, “work for those people”.
Brian,
In response to a few of your comments and questions:
I refer to anyone who discusses what a group does
without being involved with it in some way as a
theorist. So I would be a theorist if I decided to
critique the actions of Black Bloc, because although
I've worked with them at times, I'm not involved in
their actions or their decision-making. You could be
totally active in other groups, or you could be
completely interested in debate and discussion. You
are correct: I don't know you. But I do know that you
don't work with us.
That doesn't mean outsiders never have anything worth
contributing, or that they aren't impacted in some way
by our actions, especially if they attend an event
that we are involved with. But, considering that we
are neither capable nor interested in appeasing
everyone, it does mean that I'm honestly not as
concerned about how offended outsiders are by us as I
would be if the complaints came from our immediate
community. They are, again, not relevant in that
context. I replied to your statements before and am
writing this letter now for two reasons: one, because
no matter where they are printed or voiced, it's a
good idea to clear up misinformation, and two, because
they were posted in an open, public forum, which also
includes Watsonville residents.
I never stated that the Brown Berets speak for
Watsonville. I said we exist because this community
wanted us to exist. We don't sit around and decide
what is best for Watsonville, and we don't ever say
that we speak for everyone else here. But, this was a
group that was formed internally in the 1960s and
again in 1994. Of course there are people and groups
that don't agree with the Berets. There are about
50,000 people here; getting them to all agree on what
is good or bad would be an act that might force me to
believe in miracles. What I can say is that when
farmworkers, students, etc. come us with reports of
police mistreatment, military recruiter harassment, or
any other problem, it becomes our problem. We surveyed
hundreds of teenagers to find out what they want us to
do for them. When we have an event, local businesses
all over the city hang our flyers in their windows,
and donate food and supplies to help make it a
success. At the risk of repetition, critiques from
within Watsonville carry a great deal more weight than
anyone from outside the community.
I didn't respond to your issues about the graffiti
clean-up or the political concerns that night because
I was exhausted. I had originally only wanted to reply
to a few items and write more the next day. I was at
the graffiti clean-up and had no problem with it.
Personally, I have no problem either with tagging or
with people wanting to clean it up. Several of the
people at the clean-up were the residents of the
tagging locations. Many were also students and
classmates of the taggers who didn't want to see
swears and gang slogans on their garage
doors/walls/etc.
Rangers that are also lifeguards wear a blue uniform
that looks similar to a regular police officer. From
what I heard, the ranger did go to help lighten the
load on the bridge. That doesn't address everything
you brought up, but I wasn't there and don't think I
should try to respond too much to this.
Non-authoritarian ways of preventing gang violence
during the walkouts went from simply asking, "Is this
the reason you guys are out here?" to Berets
physically placing themselves between gang members,
giving them the option of continuing the attack but
knowing that they would be harming non-combatants in
the process. I don't know who from the Berets told you
that were were supposed to play the role of police to
prevent the police from coming in. That's the first
I've ever heard of it, and I would be extremely
surprised to hear it from any of our members. We are
a large group, and that might have been someone's
interpretation, but I'm skeptical.
As for the Berets involvement with politics: there are
many Berets that have no trust or love for - or
dealings with - politics at all, there are some that
are heavily involved because that's what they truly
believe will force the power structure to address
real-life immediate and long-term injustices in the
community, some feel it depends on the situation. My
own views are growing and changing in different
directions in this area, and I am learning a lot from
my compadres. Again, speaking personally, I think that
this combination is a strength because we are dealing
with our concerns in the way that feels true to each
individual and attacks a problem in a variety of ways.
Obviously, you fundamentally disagree with that
philosophy, but if we forced everyone in the Berets to
follow your particular views of what revolutionary
thought should be, forbade them from deciding if they
want to interact with police, and went on a
no-holds-barred constant attack on the power
structure, I don't see us as being anything other than
just as repressive as the police. My family and
friends know police abuse and brutality, and I have no
trust for the structure, but I do know good
individuals that are or have been police officers. I'm
not interested in dehumanizing people because they
made a decision I strongly disagree with. You say you
don't work with formal structures but would work with
individuals, perhaps that is a similar philosophy.
I have never been a "group" person. I am very much a
loner and don't believe in following the dictates of
one religion, political party, non-profit, or
whatever. What I discovered with the Berets is that
this is a vibrant and culture-embracing group of
activists and friends that will never expect me to
give up my sense of self, or the right to make my own
decisions or disagree with other members. Because
of this, and because this is also a group that
actually gets out and does something while others are
still debating their public images, the Brown Berets
have earned the loyalty of very independent,
strong-minded and strong-willed individuals.
We are constantly on watch to prevent ourselves from
becoming a police-like organization, both internally
and with the larger community. But we are an
organization. If you're against working with us as an
organization, there's little chance of you seeing how
we function and deal with anything, including any of
the issues you brought up. Your decision to not come
to the group and discuss this with us, instead posting
public criticisms about us, our actions, and our
intentions, doesn't exactly inspire humble
appreciation. Rather, it came across a lot more like
the unsubstantiated attacks we weather from letters to
editors, right-wing bloggers, and irresponsible
reporters. We are also not going to change to suit any
one person's interpretation of what makes a "real"
revolutionary group, though valid points are
considered. So ultimately, it sounds like the Brown
Berets are going to continue to offend you as long as
we exist. Do you have a different conclusion?
Saludos at todos,
Marisol
In response to a few of your comments and questions:
I refer to anyone who discusses what a group does
without being involved with it in some way as a
theorist. So I would be a theorist if I decided to
critique the actions of Black Bloc, because although
I've worked with them at times, I'm not involved in
their actions or their decision-making. You could be
totally active in other groups, or you could be
completely interested in debate and discussion. You
are correct: I don't know you. But I do know that you
don't work with us.
That doesn't mean outsiders never have anything worth
contributing, or that they aren't impacted in some way
by our actions, especially if they attend an event
that we are involved with. But, considering that we
are neither capable nor interested in appeasing
everyone, it does mean that I'm honestly not as
concerned about how offended outsiders are by us as I
would be if the complaints came from our immediate
community. They are, again, not relevant in that
context. I replied to your statements before and am
writing this letter now for two reasons: one, because
no matter where they are printed or voiced, it's a
good idea to clear up misinformation, and two, because
they were posted in an open, public forum, which also
includes Watsonville residents.
I never stated that the Brown Berets speak for
Watsonville. I said we exist because this community
wanted us to exist. We don't sit around and decide
what is best for Watsonville, and we don't ever say
that we speak for everyone else here. But, this was a
group that was formed internally in the 1960s and
again in 1994. Of course there are people and groups
that don't agree with the Berets. There are about
50,000 people here; getting them to all agree on what
is good or bad would be an act that might force me to
believe in miracles. What I can say is that when
farmworkers, students, etc. come us with reports of
police mistreatment, military recruiter harassment, or
any other problem, it becomes our problem. We surveyed
hundreds of teenagers to find out what they want us to
do for them. When we have an event, local businesses
all over the city hang our flyers in their windows,
and donate food and supplies to help make it a
success. At the risk of repetition, critiques from
within Watsonville carry a great deal more weight than
anyone from outside the community.
I didn't respond to your issues about the graffiti
clean-up or the political concerns that night because
I was exhausted. I had originally only wanted to reply
to a few items and write more the next day. I was at
the graffiti clean-up and had no problem with it.
Personally, I have no problem either with tagging or
with people wanting to clean it up. Several of the
people at the clean-up were the residents of the
tagging locations. Many were also students and
classmates of the taggers who didn't want to see
swears and gang slogans on their garage
doors/walls/etc.
Rangers that are also lifeguards wear a blue uniform
that looks similar to a regular police officer. From
what I heard, the ranger did go to help lighten the
load on the bridge. That doesn't address everything
you brought up, but I wasn't there and don't think I
should try to respond too much to this.
Non-authoritarian ways of preventing gang violence
during the walkouts went from simply asking, "Is this
the reason you guys are out here?" to Berets
physically placing themselves between gang members,
giving them the option of continuing the attack but
knowing that they would be harming non-combatants in
the process. I don't know who from the Berets told you
that were were supposed to play the role of police to
prevent the police from coming in. That's the first
I've ever heard of it, and I would be extremely
surprised to hear it from any of our members. We are
a large group, and that might have been someone's
interpretation, but I'm skeptical.
As for the Berets involvement with politics: there are
many Berets that have no trust or love for - or
dealings with - politics at all, there are some that
are heavily involved because that's what they truly
believe will force the power structure to address
real-life immediate and long-term injustices in the
community, some feel it depends on the situation. My
own views are growing and changing in different
directions in this area, and I am learning a lot from
my compadres. Again, speaking personally, I think that
this combination is a strength because we are dealing
with our concerns in the way that feels true to each
individual and attacks a problem in a variety of ways.
Obviously, you fundamentally disagree with that
philosophy, but if we forced everyone in the Berets to
follow your particular views of what revolutionary
thought should be, forbade them from deciding if they
want to interact with police, and went on a
no-holds-barred constant attack on the power
structure, I don't see us as being anything other than
just as repressive as the police. My family and
friends know police abuse and brutality, and I have no
trust for the structure, but I do know good
individuals that are or have been police officers. I'm
not interested in dehumanizing people because they
made a decision I strongly disagree with. You say you
don't work with formal structures but would work with
individuals, perhaps that is a similar philosophy.
I have never been a "group" person. I am very much a
loner and don't believe in following the dictates of
one religion, political party, non-profit, or
whatever. What I discovered with the Berets is that
this is a vibrant and culture-embracing group of
activists and friends that will never expect me to
give up my sense of self, or the right to make my own
decisions or disagree with other members. Because
of this, and because this is also a group that
actually gets out and does something while others are
still debating their public images, the Brown Berets
have earned the loyalty of very independent,
strong-minded and strong-willed individuals.
We are constantly on watch to prevent ourselves from
becoming a police-like organization, both internally
and with the larger community. But we are an
organization. If you're against working with us as an
organization, there's little chance of you seeing how
we function and deal with anything, including any of
the issues you brought up. Your decision to not come
to the group and discuss this with us, instead posting
public criticisms about us, our actions, and our
intentions, doesn't exactly inspire humble
appreciation. Rather, it came across a lot more like
the unsubstantiated attacks we weather from letters to
editors, right-wing bloggers, and irresponsible
reporters. We are also not going to change to suit any
one person's interpretation of what makes a "real"
revolutionary group, though valid points are
considered. So ultimately, it sounds like the Brown
Berets are going to continue to offend you as long as
we exist. Do you have a different conclusion?
Saludos at todos,
Marisol
In an issue of Green Anarchy, writers attempted to criticize the EZLN in the same manner in which they have feebly criticized the Brown Berets. I am posting the EZLN response. For more info check out the Green Anarchy Website. (Note: Brian Carwell's pontifications are far from original). This article originally appeared in Green Anarchy #8 (Spring 2002). http://www.greenanarchy.info/etc/ezln_response.htm
"First and foremost, it must be said that only small elements of the Frente Zapatista are willing to engage in a debate with insignificant elements along an ideological fringe. One would find even fewer warriors within the Ejercito Zapatista who would be willing to engage in intangible rhetorical battles with people whose greatest virtue is spreading their lack of understanding and knowledge around in newspapers and magazines. But the article entitled "The EZLN Is NOT Anarchist" reflected such a colonialist attitude of arrogant ignorance, several of us decided to write a response to you.
You are right. The EZLN and its larger populist body the FZLN are NOT Anarchist. Nor do we intend to be, nor should we be. In order for us to make concrete change in our social and political struggles, we cannot limit ourselves by adhering to a singular ideology. Our political and military body encompasses a wide range of belief systems from a wide range of cultures that cannot be defined under a narrow ideological microscope. There are anarchists in our midst, just as there are Catholics and Communists and followers of Santeria. We are Indians in the countryside and workers in the city. We are politicians in office and homeless children on the street. We are gay and straight, male and female, wealthy and poor. What we all have in common is a love for our families and our homelands. What we all have in common is a desire to make things better for ourselves and our country. None of this can be accomplished if we are to build walls of words and abstract ideas around ourselves.
Over the past 500 years, we have been subjected to a brutal system of exploitation and degradation few in North America have ever experienced. We have been denied land and freedom since before your country was even made and accordingly have a much different view on the world than you. We were subjected by colonial rule first by the Spanish, then by the French and Germans and lastly by the North Americans. For centuries Mexicans have been slaves and fodder and treated as less than human; a fact that scars us to this day and a fact we cannot and should not forget. Our past has made us what we are today and in attempting to break this historical trend of exploitation, we have risen up multiple times in attempts to reclaim our humanity and better our lives. First we fought with Juarez and Hidalgo against the Spanish crown, then Zapata and Villa against the Porfiriato. Now we fight against the different faces of the same head seeking to keep us enslaved as subhuman servants to Capital. This is not a struggle that was picked up from a book or gleaned from a movie, but a struggle we all inherited the moment we were given the light of life. This is a struggle that is in front of all our lives, even running through our blood. It is a struggle many of our fathers and grandfathers died for and one we ourselves are willing to die for. A struggle necessary for our people and our country. It is apparent from your condescending language and arrogant shortsightedness that you understand very little about Mexican History or Mexicans in general. We may be "fundamentally reformist" and may be working for "nothing concrete that could not be provided for by capitalism" but rest assured that food, land, democracy, justice and peace are terribly precious when you don't have them. Precious enough to struggle for at any cost, even at the risk of offending some comfortable people in a far off land who think their belief system is more important than basic human needs. Precious enough to work for with whatever tools we have before us, be it negotiations with the State or networking within popular culture. Our struggle was raging before anarchism was even a word, much less an ideology with newspapers and disciples. Our struggle is older than Bakunin or Kropotkin. Even though anarchists and syndicates have fought bravely with us, we are not willing to lower our history to meet some narrow ideology exported from the same countries we fought against in our Wars for independence. The struggle in Mexico, Zapatista and otherwise, is a product of our histories and our cultures and cannot be bent and manipulated to fit someone else's formula, much less a formula not at all informed about our people, our country or our histories. You are right, we as a movement are not anarchist. We are people trying to take control of our lives and reclaim a dignity that was stolen from us the moment Cortes came to power.
In fighting for these ends, we must do what is most effective for us, for all of us, without succumbing to the temptation of being divided into small little groups that are more easily purchased by those keeping us enslaved. We learned this lesson from La Malinche as she helped Cortes divide 30 million Mexicans up into an easily conquered group of feuding bodies. We learned this lesson from the post-independence reign of the Porfiriato and from the post-revolutionary betrayal at the hands of the rich powers. We see narrow-minded ideologies like anarchism and communism as tools to pull apart Mexicans into more easily exploitable groups. Rather than facing our enemies as groups that can be turned against each other, we prefer to work together as a common people with a common goal. Your article used the word "compromise" as though it were profanity. For us it is the glue that holds us all together in a common struggle. Without these compromises that allow us to work together, we would be nowhere; lonely slaves waiting to be exploited just as we have been in the past. We will not be bought off this time. We will not allow ourselves to be treated as particulars and accept favors from the powers that harvest wealth from our misfortune. And as we are doing things right now, it is working. 60 million people signed petitions to stop the War in Chiapas. Zapatismo is alive again. We have cells in every town in every state all across the country made up of people from all over the demographic spectrum. We are organized. We are powerful. We will succeed in our fight simply because we are too large and too well organized to be ignored or quashed by the Powers.What we have may not be perfect. It may not be ideal. But it is working for us now in a very much visible fashion.And we wouldn't hesitate to say that if you were in our position, you would be doing the same things.But what really enraged us in your article was the familiar old face of colonialism shining through your good intentions. Lots of North Americans come to Mexico and turn up their nose at our food and our lifestyles, claiming that we are not as good as things they have "back home." The author of your article does the same thing in his "critiques" of Zapatismo. If these "critiques" had included a detailed discussion on our tactics with reference to our history and current positions in the world, it wouldn't have been a big deal, nothing that we don't do constantly within our own organizations. But the fact that he just slagged Zapatismo off as being a vanguard of reformist nationalists without even a touch of analysis on WHY this is, illustrates that once again we Mexicans are not as good as the all knowing North American Imperialist who thinks himself more aware, more intelligent and more sophisticated politically than the dumb Mexican. This attitude, though hidden behind thin veils of objectivity, is the same attitude that we have been dealing with for 500 years, where someone else in some other country from some other culture thinks they know what is best for us more than we do ourselves. Even more disgusting to us was the line "The question of revolutionary solidarity in these struggles is, therefore, the question of how to intervene in a way that is fitting with one's aims, in a way that moves one's revolutionary anarchist project forward." It would be difficult for us to design a more concise list of colonial words and attitudes than those used in this sentence. "Intervene?" "Moves one's 'project' forward?" Mexicans have a very well developed understanding of what "intervention" entails. Try looking up Conquista and Villahermosa and Tejas and Maximilian in a history book for even a small glimpse of what we see when North Americans start talking about "intervention." But once again, the anarchists in North America know better than us about how to wage a struggle we have been engaged in since 300 years before their country was founded and can therefore, even think about using us as a means to "advance their project." That is the same exact attitude Capitalists and Empires have been using to exploit and degrade Mexico and the rest of the third world for the past five hundred years. Even though this article talks a lot about revolution, the attitudes and ideas held by the author are no different than those held by Cortes, Monroe or any other corporate imperialist bastard you can think of. Your intervention is not wanted nor are we a "project" for some high-minded North Americans to profit off.The author talks much about revolutionary solidarity without ever defining the term. What does revolutionary solidarity mean to him? From the attitude of his article it is apparent that revolutionary solidarity is more or less the same thing to him as "profit margins" and "cost/benefit analyses" are to corporate imperialists, ways to use someone else for one's own gain. So long as North American anarchists hold and espouse colonialist belief systems they will forever find themselves without allies in the third world. The peasants in Bolivia and Ecuador, no matter how closely in conformity with your rigid ideology, will not appreciate your condescending colonial attitudes anymore than would the freedom fighters in Papua New Guinea or anywhere else in the world.
Colonialism is one of the many enemies we are fighting in this world and so long as North Americans reinforce colonial thought patterns in their "revolutionary" struggles, they will never be on the side of any anti-colonial struggle anywhere.We in the Zapatista struggle have never asked anyone for unflinching, uncritical support. What we have asked the world to do is respect the historical context we are in and think about the actions we do to pull ourselves from under the boots of oppression. At the same time, you should be looking at your own struggles in your own country and seeing the commonalties we have between us. This is the only way we have to make a global Revolution".
"First and foremost, it must be said that only small elements of the Frente Zapatista are willing to engage in a debate with insignificant elements along an ideological fringe. One would find even fewer warriors within the Ejercito Zapatista who would be willing to engage in intangible rhetorical battles with people whose greatest virtue is spreading their lack of understanding and knowledge around in newspapers and magazines. But the article entitled "The EZLN Is NOT Anarchist" reflected such a colonialist attitude of arrogant ignorance, several of us decided to write a response to you.
You are right. The EZLN and its larger populist body the FZLN are NOT Anarchist. Nor do we intend to be, nor should we be. In order for us to make concrete change in our social and political struggles, we cannot limit ourselves by adhering to a singular ideology. Our political and military body encompasses a wide range of belief systems from a wide range of cultures that cannot be defined under a narrow ideological microscope. There are anarchists in our midst, just as there are Catholics and Communists and followers of Santeria. We are Indians in the countryside and workers in the city. We are politicians in office and homeless children on the street. We are gay and straight, male and female, wealthy and poor. What we all have in common is a love for our families and our homelands. What we all have in common is a desire to make things better for ourselves and our country. None of this can be accomplished if we are to build walls of words and abstract ideas around ourselves.
Over the past 500 years, we have been subjected to a brutal system of exploitation and degradation few in North America have ever experienced. We have been denied land and freedom since before your country was even made and accordingly have a much different view on the world than you. We were subjected by colonial rule first by the Spanish, then by the French and Germans and lastly by the North Americans. For centuries Mexicans have been slaves and fodder and treated as less than human; a fact that scars us to this day and a fact we cannot and should not forget. Our past has made us what we are today and in attempting to break this historical trend of exploitation, we have risen up multiple times in attempts to reclaim our humanity and better our lives. First we fought with Juarez and Hidalgo against the Spanish crown, then Zapata and Villa against the Porfiriato. Now we fight against the different faces of the same head seeking to keep us enslaved as subhuman servants to Capital. This is not a struggle that was picked up from a book or gleaned from a movie, but a struggle we all inherited the moment we were given the light of life. This is a struggle that is in front of all our lives, even running through our blood. It is a struggle many of our fathers and grandfathers died for and one we ourselves are willing to die for. A struggle necessary for our people and our country. It is apparent from your condescending language and arrogant shortsightedness that you understand very little about Mexican History or Mexicans in general. We may be "fundamentally reformist" and may be working for "nothing concrete that could not be provided for by capitalism" but rest assured that food, land, democracy, justice and peace are terribly precious when you don't have them. Precious enough to struggle for at any cost, even at the risk of offending some comfortable people in a far off land who think their belief system is more important than basic human needs. Precious enough to work for with whatever tools we have before us, be it negotiations with the State or networking within popular culture. Our struggle was raging before anarchism was even a word, much less an ideology with newspapers and disciples. Our struggle is older than Bakunin or Kropotkin. Even though anarchists and syndicates have fought bravely with us, we are not willing to lower our history to meet some narrow ideology exported from the same countries we fought against in our Wars for independence. The struggle in Mexico, Zapatista and otherwise, is a product of our histories and our cultures and cannot be bent and manipulated to fit someone else's formula, much less a formula not at all informed about our people, our country or our histories. You are right, we as a movement are not anarchist. We are people trying to take control of our lives and reclaim a dignity that was stolen from us the moment Cortes came to power.
In fighting for these ends, we must do what is most effective for us, for all of us, without succumbing to the temptation of being divided into small little groups that are more easily purchased by those keeping us enslaved. We learned this lesson from La Malinche as she helped Cortes divide 30 million Mexicans up into an easily conquered group of feuding bodies. We learned this lesson from the post-independence reign of the Porfiriato and from the post-revolutionary betrayal at the hands of the rich powers. We see narrow-minded ideologies like anarchism and communism as tools to pull apart Mexicans into more easily exploitable groups. Rather than facing our enemies as groups that can be turned against each other, we prefer to work together as a common people with a common goal. Your article used the word "compromise" as though it were profanity. For us it is the glue that holds us all together in a common struggle. Without these compromises that allow us to work together, we would be nowhere; lonely slaves waiting to be exploited just as we have been in the past. We will not be bought off this time. We will not allow ourselves to be treated as particulars and accept favors from the powers that harvest wealth from our misfortune. And as we are doing things right now, it is working. 60 million people signed petitions to stop the War in Chiapas. Zapatismo is alive again. We have cells in every town in every state all across the country made up of people from all over the demographic spectrum. We are organized. We are powerful. We will succeed in our fight simply because we are too large and too well organized to be ignored or quashed by the Powers.What we have may not be perfect. It may not be ideal. But it is working for us now in a very much visible fashion.And we wouldn't hesitate to say that if you were in our position, you would be doing the same things.But what really enraged us in your article was the familiar old face of colonialism shining through your good intentions. Lots of North Americans come to Mexico and turn up their nose at our food and our lifestyles, claiming that we are not as good as things they have "back home." The author of your article does the same thing in his "critiques" of Zapatismo. If these "critiques" had included a detailed discussion on our tactics with reference to our history and current positions in the world, it wouldn't have been a big deal, nothing that we don't do constantly within our own organizations. But the fact that he just slagged Zapatismo off as being a vanguard of reformist nationalists without even a touch of analysis on WHY this is, illustrates that once again we Mexicans are not as good as the all knowing North American Imperialist who thinks himself more aware, more intelligent and more sophisticated politically than the dumb Mexican. This attitude, though hidden behind thin veils of objectivity, is the same attitude that we have been dealing with for 500 years, where someone else in some other country from some other culture thinks they know what is best for us more than we do ourselves. Even more disgusting to us was the line "The question of revolutionary solidarity in these struggles is, therefore, the question of how to intervene in a way that is fitting with one's aims, in a way that moves one's revolutionary anarchist project forward." It would be difficult for us to design a more concise list of colonial words and attitudes than those used in this sentence. "Intervene?" "Moves one's 'project' forward?" Mexicans have a very well developed understanding of what "intervention" entails. Try looking up Conquista and Villahermosa and Tejas and Maximilian in a history book for even a small glimpse of what we see when North Americans start talking about "intervention." But once again, the anarchists in North America know better than us about how to wage a struggle we have been engaged in since 300 years before their country was founded and can therefore, even think about using us as a means to "advance their project." That is the same exact attitude Capitalists and Empires have been using to exploit and degrade Mexico and the rest of the third world for the past five hundred years. Even though this article talks a lot about revolution, the attitudes and ideas held by the author are no different than those held by Cortes, Monroe or any other corporate imperialist bastard you can think of. Your intervention is not wanted nor are we a "project" for some high-minded North Americans to profit off.The author talks much about revolutionary solidarity without ever defining the term. What does revolutionary solidarity mean to him? From the attitude of his article it is apparent that revolutionary solidarity is more or less the same thing to him as "profit margins" and "cost/benefit analyses" are to corporate imperialists, ways to use someone else for one's own gain. So long as North American anarchists hold and espouse colonialist belief systems they will forever find themselves without allies in the third world. The peasants in Bolivia and Ecuador, no matter how closely in conformity with your rigid ideology, will not appreciate your condescending colonial attitudes anymore than would the freedom fighters in Papua New Guinea or anywhere else in the world.
Colonialism is one of the many enemies we are fighting in this world and so long as North Americans reinforce colonial thought patterns in their "revolutionary" struggles, they will never be on the side of any anti-colonial struggle anywhere.We in the Zapatista struggle have never asked anyone for unflinching, uncritical support. What we have asked the world to do is respect the historical context we are in and think about the actions we do to pull ourselves from under the boots of oppression. At the same time, you should be looking at your own struggles in your own country and seeing the commonalties we have between us. This is the only way we have to make a global Revolution".
Yup, the EZLN just basically laid down exactly what needs to be said to "Brian", although I can't help but wonder if he really even exists or just as a figment of a COINTELPRO operative's immagination. Not only Brian should heed these words but any and all people who claim to know better than people directly involved in struggle wherever or on what ever level it exists. To me, by any means neccessary means doing exactly that, working in whatever way is neccessary to advance the goals of the struggle. That could take any and all forms including working with your enemies occasionally. Whats the old saying, "Keep you friends close and your enemies even closer." I guess that applies here although the Brown Berets don't make it a regular practice to collaborate or cooperate with the police. In fact, I seem to remember one of our members shouting with his middle finger up in the air in front of a crowd of hundreds "FUCK THE POLICE" at Youth and Power this year. And its not too often you get to tell the chief of any police department that his unit is uninterested in stopping crime or addressing issues of social and economic justice because they are dependent on it for their continued relevance and survival. Or how about several city council members publicly stating their support and approval of BB activities not just vocally but with their own hard earned money. When did you last recieve a public commendation and several hundred dollar donation from any public officials Brian? Not that this sould be used as a measure of our effectiveness or ineffectiveness just by itself, but it does seem to point towards our general effectiveness and power, which again, maybe power=authourity and that's bad for Brian, but me? I DON'T CARE!!! (well, maybe a little bit, I did post this response).
It should also be noted that at that very same city council meeting the week before Youth and Power, the most conservative, racist, slimeball of a politician on the Watzlan City Council resigned citing Brown Berets involvement in meetings and her fellow City Council members "leftist" ideology as reasons for her departure. Well, good riddance to bad rubbish. Important to note is the Berets role in getting some of those people citied by slimeball lady elected in the first place. Electoral politics by themselves will change nothing, on that note I believe me and Brian agree. But where we differ is our reactions to it. If you totally abandon it to the right, thats what you'll get, a government of right wing nutjobs. And let me preface this next statement by saying, fuck national politics and to a lesser extent state politics, but the only place we'll ever see real effective change through electoral politics is on a local level. I know where council members live. I know them personally, I can call them directly if I have a problem with them or their policies. That isn't possible as you move up the electoral ladder. These local officials are the people we can hold accountable, not those madmen killas in the white house, as evident by years of calls for impeachment. Having local allies in positions of power more often can work to your benefit if you continue to define the terms and set up the exchanges as you wish.
In conclusion, Brian, the world is not going to wake up one day and realize that marx, bakounin, or any other radical author you'd like to cite is right about everything and simultaneously suddenly decide to radically change the world. It ain't gonna happen. What is gonna happen is apathy will continue for the most part amongst the general populace in the USA and ineffective ideolouges from whatever side of the debate can continue arguing about nothing and other trivial differences while the world goes to hell in a handbasket both ecologically and socially. Meanwhile, small groups of dedicated, adaptable, "reformist revolutionaries" from all over the world will continue the ever so slow process of real change within the soical and economic realities of this extremely fucked up world. They will be mocked by the more ideologically pure and "radical" elements of the movements, but utimately their actions will if not stop the self destruction of the world, will at least slow it down, and will be able to rest easy in their graves knowing they gave it all they had.
I'd rather be effective at changing the world than "ideologically pure".
It should also be noted that at that very same city council meeting the week before Youth and Power, the most conservative, racist, slimeball of a politician on the Watzlan City Council resigned citing Brown Berets involvement in meetings and her fellow City Council members "leftist" ideology as reasons for her departure. Well, good riddance to bad rubbish. Important to note is the Berets role in getting some of those people citied by slimeball lady elected in the first place. Electoral politics by themselves will change nothing, on that note I believe me and Brian agree. But where we differ is our reactions to it. If you totally abandon it to the right, thats what you'll get, a government of right wing nutjobs. And let me preface this next statement by saying, fuck national politics and to a lesser extent state politics, but the only place we'll ever see real effective change through electoral politics is on a local level. I know where council members live. I know them personally, I can call them directly if I have a problem with them or their policies. That isn't possible as you move up the electoral ladder. These local officials are the people we can hold accountable, not those madmen killas in the white house, as evident by years of calls for impeachment. Having local allies in positions of power more often can work to your benefit if you continue to define the terms and set up the exchanges as you wish.
In conclusion, Brian, the world is not going to wake up one day and realize that marx, bakounin, or any other radical author you'd like to cite is right about everything and simultaneously suddenly decide to radically change the world. It ain't gonna happen. What is gonna happen is apathy will continue for the most part amongst the general populace in the USA and ineffective ideolouges from whatever side of the debate can continue arguing about nothing and other trivial differences while the world goes to hell in a handbasket both ecologically and socially. Meanwhile, small groups of dedicated, adaptable, "reformist revolutionaries" from all over the world will continue the ever so slow process of real change within the soical and economic realities of this extremely fucked up world. They will be mocked by the more ideologically pure and "radical" elements of the movements, but utimately their actions will if not stop the self destruction of the world, will at least slow it down, and will be able to rest easy in their graves knowing they gave it all they had.
I'd rather be effective at changing the world than "ideologically pure".
For more information:
http://www.brownberets.info
You wasted all this time wrtiting this letter and your responses instead of really getting involved in the community. What a joke! Get off the computer! Work with us instead of against us! If you see a problem with our actions tell us, don't cowardly post this factually innacurate letter all over the indymedia network. Thanks for the misinformation a-hole! Like we don't already get enough shit from the far right, now we got to get inaccurate shit from the far left too? Fuck that and fuck this post, I can't believe I'm wasting more energy on this....
My biggest beef with this letter is not neccessarily what Brian says, although as I see it, I think it's factually innacurate, but how he goes about saying it. As the EZLN said in their response above, white radicals despite their good intentions telling us how to run our movements is still as colonial as the government doing it. Who are you to tell us this is how we should work? I respect your intentions and even some of what you wrote as suggestions for us to consider, but fuck your tatics and fuck your attempt to tell us how revolutionary or not revolutionary we are by your standards, cause quite frankly, I think that's bullshit.
My biggest beef with this letter is not neccessarily what Brian says, although as I see it, I think it's factually innacurate, but how he goes about saying it. As the EZLN said in their response above, white radicals despite their good intentions telling us how to run our movements is still as colonial as the government doing it. Who are you to tell us this is how we should work? I respect your intentions and even some of what you wrote as suggestions for us to consider, but fuck your tatics and fuck your attempt to tell us how revolutionary or not revolutionary we are by your standards, cause quite frankly, I think that's bullshit.
this bastard is posting this letter all over the internet. what a dick. so much for "constructive" dialogue.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 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