[Marxism] "progresive white supremacism" again rears its ugly head on the list?
Dbachmozart at aol.com
Dbachmozart at aol.com
Sat Dec 6 13:15:17 MST 2008
Joaquin Bustelo a few weeks ago --
What Lenni Brenner did was simply, in the time honored, white-supremacist
manner of racist imperialist "progressives" and "radicals," was to leave the
Vietnamese, the MAIN PROTAGONISTS of this world-historic victory, completely
out of the picture, attributing it INSTEAD to white people.
My question -
Can we expect a similar attack on Cliff Conner for his "progressive white
To the Editor:
I was glad to hear William Ayers rebut, in his own words, the
meanspirited and absurd campaign of demonization that the right-wing
blogosphere conducted against him. I encountered Mr. Ayers many years
ago in the movement against the Vietnam War and I would like to offer
some context in which his retrospective evaluation of that movement
can be better understood. Bill Ayers and I have opposing views about
the effectiveness of that movement. He sees it as a mostly empty
glass (it couldn't stop the war) and I see it as a glass half full
(it did stop the war, but it took many years to do so).
There were, broadly speaking, two very different and opposed "wings"
of the antiwar movement of the 'sixties. Bill Ayers and I were on
opposite sides. He was (again, generally speaking) in the wing that
most people will remember because its leading figures, like Abbie
Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, were very colorful characters who naturally
became the focus of the mass news media. The other wing, to which I
devoted several years of my young life, was much less exciting.
Instead of dramatic pronunciations and spectacular actions designed
to attract media attention, we went about the boring business of
organizing mass protest demonstrations under the prosaic slogan:
"Bring the troops home now!" Between 1965 and 1974, although the size
of the demonstrations ebbed and flowed (mostly ebbing in election
years and flowing in between), the general trend gave evidence of an
explosive growth of antiwar sentiment in the general population of
the United States.
I agree with Bill Ayers that the wing of the movement he represented
was ineffective. I would go further and say it was counterproductive,
because its sophomoric ultraradicalism tended to discredit the
antiwar movement and alienate most of the American population from
it. But the movement as a whole nonetheless persisted and, in my
opinion, eventually played an essential role in ending the war. From
handfuls of protesters in its early days, the movement grew to being
able to bring hundreds of thousands of people into the streets. Those
demonstrators were not, for the most part, radical students, but
ordinary people from all walks of life. Once the message of the
antiwar movement began to take hold among the general population, its
spread among those who were sent to fight the war could not be
prevented. And once the GIs in Vietnam themselves turned solidly
against the war, it was only a matter of time before it ended.
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
More information about the Marxism