|
CounterPunch
December
21, 2002
Blacks and the
Anti-War Movement
Anti-War Hardcore v. Anti-War Lite
by THE BLACK COMMENTATOR
As Blacks take leadership roles in the growing
anti-war movement, the more comfortable corners of the Left are
busy generating schisms, for no reason other than to assure the
War Party of their patriotism. Privileged people are like that.
They insist on having their way and deciding who is and who is
not good company, even when the stakes are life and death --possibly
for the whole planet.
We could take the safe, diplomatic course
and pronounce that the emergence of rival umbrellas among those
who claim to lead the opposition to Bush's war agenda is actually
a positive development, signaling maturity and the prospect of
a healthy division of labor. But that's nonsense. The truth is,
there is Anti-war Hardcore and Anti-War Lite. African Americans
are involved in both camps.
We are glad that there is resistance
of any serious variety, since it is clear to the clear-headed
that George Bush and his pirates are preparing to jail the opposition,
or worse, as soon as a domestic emergency can be justified as
part of the War on Terror. When and if that time comes, safety
will be found only in huge numbers. Hardcore and Lite alike,
all on the same roundup list. What a country!
Having made the proper, nonsectarian
noises, we will come clean to express the most extreme irritation
at the nasty little people who, not content to simply do something
useful by organizing as many folks as they can against Bush,
feel it necessary to badmouth the organizers of October 26's
demonstrations. At minimum, 100,000 and 50,000 people protested
in Washington and San Francisco, respectively, against the wishes
of the corporate media, which virtually boycotted the events.
By proving that the opposition was capable of mounting an effective
popular response to the Bush administration's war hysteria, the
organizers may well have changed the course of history and saved
countless lives.
At the center of the October mobilization
and the follow-up demonstrations set for January 18 is A.N.S.W.E.R.,
Act Now to Stop War & End Racism. Had it not been for the
A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition's efforts, Bush and his media would have
announced to the world that the American people were solidly
behind his war plans. A.N.S.W.E.R. achieved what no one on the
"comfortable" Left would or could: they made Bush think
about the domestic consequences of his military actions, by mounting
demonstrations before the onset of war on a scale that the Sixties
movement did not equal until at least 30,000 Americans and several
million Vietnamese were already dead.
A.N.S.W.E.R.
brings the crowd
True to its acronym, A.N.S.W.E.R. has
had some success in darkening their coalition. One thousand people
turned out at Rev. Herbert Daughtry's Brooklyn church for a November
21 rally. Daughtry's partner in the National Action Network,
Rev. Al Sharpton, spoke at the October demonstration in Washington,
as did Rev. Jesse Jackson. The movement is still disproportionately
white, drawn largely from already existing anti-corporate globalism
groups, but A.N.S.W.E.R.'s tireless efforts have been anything
but "narrow" or "sectarian." Heroic is a
better word.
Now comes the nattering from places such
as The Nation magazine --people like columnist David Corn who
wouldn't lift a finger to stop the entire world from going up
in smoke if it meant associating with the Workers World Party,
the grouplet at the heart of A.N.S.W.E.R. For a tiny outfit,
the WWP has accomplished a great deal, apparently having learned
well the lesson that you can't mobilize hundreds of thousands
of people simply by waving the Little Red Book of Chairman Mao's
quotations. Corn and other sideliners complain that the WWP uses
control of the microphones to make "outrageous" demands
(like freedom for the man formerly known as H. Rap Brown).
Corn and his crowd are the "sectarian"
brats. We at judge activists by their abilities to set people
in motion. We are most concerned that a bunch of middle-aged
white children are injecting their petty disputes, which originate
in political turf too small for anybody else to care about, into
a struggle to save what's left of American democracy --a commodity
that is worth more to us because we have less of it. Human existence,
itself, is in jeopardy. Yet the destructive little brats want
to throw out the people who set the resistance in motion.
Blacks have enough sectarian problems
of our own, which we somehow manage to keep in check, if barely.
If the white Left finds that its ranks remain racially anemic,
they will have only themselves to blame. African Americans will
not be part of any tantrum-throwing spectacles among the privileged.
"Assurances
of "patriotism"
There are real differences between what
we will call Anti-War Hardcore and Anti-War Lite, although not
necessarily irreconcilable ones. The upstart, Lite camp is gathered
under the banner of the Win Without War coalition. The core of
the coalition employed the slogan, "Keep America Safe: Win
Without War." Essentially, these groups are concerned that
everyone know how much they, like Bush, hate Saddam Hussein,
but feel that war is not the best way to deal with him. Members
include the National Council of Churches, Business Leaders for
Sensible Priorities, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men,
the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Move On, the National
Organization for Women, Physicians for Social Responsibility,
Rainbow Push Coalition, Sojourners, Women's Action for New Directions,
Working Assets, the NAACP, and Artists Against War.
In order to disassociate themselves from
A.N.S.W.E.R., the Win Without War umbrella feels it is necessary
to declare, "We are patriotic Americans who share the belief
that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass
destruction." The implication is that some people in the
other camp are not sufficiently patriotic. "We support rigorous
UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament,"
said the Anti-War Lite statement. It continued, less defensively:
"We believe that a preemptive military
invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests. Unprovoked
war will increase human suffering, arouse animosity toward our
country, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, damage
the economy and undermine our moral standing in the world. It
will make us less, not more, secure."
If that will get them to the protests
on time and in large numbers, fine. The problem is, Win Without
War has not endorsed the January 18 A.N.S.W.E.R. demonstrations,
although some affiliated groups and individuals will doubtless
take part. Since most of the coalition didn't have anything to
do with the October protests, their absence in January shouldn't
be of much concern. If they would be satisfied with staging actions
on their own schedules, such as the small, scattered demonstrations
that took place on December 10, that too would be useful. But
the brats and dilettantes in their ranks are certain to grab
corporate media microphones to smear A.N.S.W.E.R., rather than
tend to their own business.
believes that, in the end, it's going
to require that serious Black activists smack the spoilers upside
the head, so to speak, and teach them how to be adult. Bush is
deadly serious. The resistance must be even more disciplined.
Peace, justice
and good wages
Organized labor, at their best moments,
understands the value of solidarity, and dare anyone to challenge
their patriotism. The following resolution by the San Francisco
Labor Council is definitely not Anti-War Lite:
Whereas, since the tragic events of September
11, 2001, we have seen the beginning of a relentless new assault
on labor --from the employers, and from the government acting
on their behalf; and
Whereas, using the so-called "war
on terrorism" and "national security" as a pretext,
the Bush Administration has spearheaded a renewed assault on
organized labor, starting with the use of Taft-Hartley (and threats
to militarize the ports) against West Coast dockworkers...wholesale
threats to the job security and union rights of 170,000 federal
workers...the racist firings of experienced airport screeners...threats
to curtail the right to strike and organize; and the impending
contracting out of hundreds of thousands of federal jobs. On
more than one occasion, government spokespersons have referred
to union actions defending our jobs, working conditions and living
standards as akin to terrorism, or as "aiding and abetting
terrorists", or as a "threat to national security";
and
Whereas, Bush's war (on Afghanistan,
Iraq, Colombia, the Philippines, where next?) has become the
main engine for the repression of labor. "National security",
in the hands of a thoroughly anti-labor Bush Administration,
is being used as a bludgeon against labor, with the intent of
rolling back all the gains workers have won since the 1930s,
including collective bargaining itself, and including social
programs championed by the labor movement like welfare, social
security, unemployment insurance; and
Whereas, a strong fight-back requires
that labor make it a priority to stake out a clear, forthright
and fighting stance against Bush's war, and see the anti-war
and anti-globalization movements as our strategic allies, needed
if we are to defeat the assault on labor and move to the offensive.
We got a glimpse of the potential power of this combination during
the 1999 showdown in Seattle; and
Whereas, the Rev. Martin Luther King,
Jr. embodied the coming together of the labor, anti-war and civil
rights movements during the tremendous upsurge of the mass movement
in the 1960s, and we need to revive this powerful combination
of the people's forces to defeat Bush's war and the racism that
underlies it and that it promotes; and
Whereas, our opposition to the Bush Administration's
war on the Iraqi people, and to their attacks or threats against
other smaller, sovereign countries around the globe, fits hand
in glove with labor's fighting defense of the interests of the
working people of all races and nationalities here at home; therefore
be it
RESOLVED: That the San Francisco Labor
Council, AFL-CIO, endorse the Martin Luther King weekend anti-war
activities --the January 18, 2003 marches in San Francisco and
Washington, DC in opposition to the war on Iraq, and the Grassroots
Peace Congress being held in Washington, as well as the People's
Anti-War Referendum ["VoteNoWar"] by which millions
of Americans are casting their "votes" against this
war; and be it further
RESOLVED: That this council work to ensure
that organized labor and the national AFL-CIO take a clear and
early stand against Bush's war.
The resolution was approved unanimously.
These men and women have seen the enemy, and it is Bush. They
don't waste time and resources in anguish over the presence of
people carrying Little Red Books. And there is no more fitting
activity during the week of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday
than to march in the interest of peace.
Glover and
Belafonte in Cuba
Among the Black signers of the Artists
Against War petition are Diahann Carroll, Charles S. Dutton,
Laurence Fishburne, Robert Guillaume, LaTanya Richardson Jackson,
Samuel L. Jackson, Blair Underwood, Alfre Woodard, and Danny
Glover. Glover joined Harry Belafonte, who is as hard core a
veteran for peace as they come, for a press conference at Havana's
Hotel Nacional, where they generally agreed on professional and
political matters. It was Glover's fourth attendance at the Havana
Film Festival; Belafonte has only "missed four out of 24
festivals."
Belafonte deplored the state of Hollywood
cinema, saying he found the "highest movie-making standards
at festivals in Havana, Cartagena [Spain] and Brazil, where cinema
is an art showing more sensitivity than just aiming at the market."
Glover repeated to the international press his stand against
Bush's war plans: "My position on the war is very clear,
above all for the impact that it will have on women and children
in Iraq who are already suffering the consequences of sanctions."
Belafonte had a ready answer for those
who question the propriety of criticizing the U.S. in a Cuban
forum. "Many of my friends are journalists," said the
singer-actor-activist, "and they tell me that there has
never been as much censorship as now, and if they rebel then
they will just lose their jobs."
Anti-War Lite Glover and Hard Core Harry
were quite compatible. If only the white folks of the movement
could just get along....
No cost, no
excuse
Baltimore City Councilman Kwame Abayome
got unanimous support for his anti-war resolution, part of a
growing urban peace offensive. urges our influential readership
to consider the language approved by Baltimore's local legislators:
FOR the purpose of reaffirming the articles
of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international
law on the peaceful resolution of disputes, opposing the United
States' continued and threatened violation of the United Nations
Charter and of international law by the unilateral, preemptive
military action against the nation of Iraq, opposing the continued
nonmilitary sanctions and proposed escalated military action,
and urging the Bush Administration and our federal representatives
to work with and through the United Nations to obtain compliance
by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions
concerning the development by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction
and to support fully the return of international weapons inspectors
to Iraq for that purpose and to actively support the United Nations'
diplomatic efforts to support and encourage democracy and respect
for human rights in Iraq and all nations.
The $200 billion cost of the war --for
starters --will wreak immediate disaster in every city of the
nation. The least that city councils can do is go on the record
with their non-binding opinions.
In industrial and mostly Black and Hispanic
Elizabeth, New Jersey, Councilwoman Pat Perkins Aguste convinced
her colleagues to pass a "Culture of Peace" resolution
that, she said, "we take to mean no aggressive war with
Iraq."
"There is a role for us to play,"
said the Black lawmaker. "If we are asked to play a role
we should step up."
The $2 trillion
war
If the United States conquers Iraq and
sticks around for ten years, the total cost to the economy could
rise to $2 trillion dollars. That's one-fifth of the value of
the nation's yearly goods and services, 40 times the annual value
of all U.S. agricultural exports to the world, the whole federal
budget for one year... it is unfathomable to all but the war
profiteers who are even now dividing contracts.
As when confronted with an earlier, $200
billion estimated cost of several years' involvement in Iraq,
the White House called the discussion "premature,"
since "we're hoping for a peaceful solution."
Occupation and peacekeeping could cost
$500 billion, according to the report of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences. Most of the rest of the damage would result
from economic recession, caused by disruption in oil markets.
In a best-case scenario, the benefits
to the U.S. economy of Iraq's oil resources would amount to only
about $40 billion.
The figures tell the tale. The pirates
are in charge. Only they stand to profit.
The Anti-War Lite crowd doesn't understand
who they're up against.
The
Black Commentator is one
of CounterPunch's favorite websites. We urge to bookmark it and
visit it daily. They can be reached at: publisher@blackcommentator.com
Yesterday's
Features
Sean Carter
The Bush
Rape Story
Why is the Media Ignoring Zippergate 2?
Francis Boyle
What Are
Bush's Intentions Toward Palestine?
David Vest
Meet the
New Southern Strategy
Same as the Old Southern Strategy
Sayed Moustafa Al-qazwini
Will Bush Betray Iraqis Once Again?
Mahbubul Karin (Sohel)
Is This
Really Happening?
Mass Arrests of Muslim and Jewish Immigrants
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
December 10,
2002
Carol Norris
Help Wanted:
US Government Looking for a Few Qualified Applicants
Tom Gorman
With Liberators
Like These, Who Needs Conquerors?
Linda Heard
Spies,
Snitches and Eyes in the Sky
Josh Ruebner
Striking
with Impunity
Joanne Mariner
You Have
No Right to Remain Silent
December 9,
2002
Adam Engel
Great Expectations:
an Immodest Proposal
Roldan Tomasz
Suárez
What Really
Happened in Altamira Plaza?
Robert Jensen
Bob Woodward's
Bush Hagiography
William Hughes
Berrigan's
Final Warning
Uri Avnery
Why Does
the Leopard Change His Spots?
Netanyahu and Likud
Gary Leupp
Religious
Intolerance Then and Now
Hammond Guthrie
In a
Moment's Time
(for Philip Berrigan)
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|