[Marxism] Re: WWP does it again
ljansen12 at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 6 13:56:15 MDT 2005
Below is a link to a Seattle Weekly article written by Geov Parrish.
He is constantly harping on the idea that ANSWER scares away the
"mainstream people" who might otherwise attend a demo.
Here's my letter to the editor in response:
Geov Parrish Phoning It In on the Antiwar Movement
Geov Parrish drags out his original column about the lack of creativity
of the antiwar movement and reworks it for the umpteenth time to
criticize the Seattle march on Sept. 24. Geov one-note didn't even
bother to listen to the speakers apparently. He didn't notice that
[US Representative Jim McDermott--not exactly a Stalinist--spoke
about an exit strategy (rather than troops out now which was the
prevailing sentiment of the march). He didn't notice that Lisa Gill, an
active member of Military Families Speak Out, spoke about
the hardships this illegal war is working on the soldiers and their families.
Instead he noticed that there were speeches on racism. Oh, gee,
that's not relevant to a march calling for the end of a war
promulgated by a predominantly white, militarist country on the
Black and Brown people of two countries that had nothing to do
with the attack supposedly underlies the invasions of Afghanistan
He does state that local ANSWER organizers are "oblivious to
the politics" of their parent organization. Clever backhand insult
to some dedicated people who gave thousands of people a
chance to send a message to our elected representatives and
also to Iraqis and Afghanis (and yes, Haitians and Palestinians)
who are suffering under immoral occupations staffed and funded
by the US and its allies.
The SNOW coalition is indeed faltering as Geov points out. My perspective
is that part of the reason for that is that while SNOW did endorse
the Sept. 24 march, it did not actively promote it as it has with
past marches, probably excusing itself for all the reasons that
Geov throws out about the so-called radical politics of ANSWER.
ANSWERs slogans are radical, if you use the dictionary definition
of radical: getting to the "root" of the problem. Since most
Americans are "oblivious" of charges of Stalinism made against
ANSWER, they only see the radical slogans. And it is my belief
they identify with them. Isn't common sense that if an occupation
of Iraq and Afghanistan by brutal US forces is wrong, then the
same type of occupation is wrong in Haiti and Palestine--which
we fund, if not contribute troops to?
Geov needs to rethink his uncreative criticism of the
The U.S. is not color-blind. It's colored blind. Ishmael Reed
More information about the Marxism