[Peace-discuss] Re: petition period has begun for next year's D and R primaries

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

We agreed that was ONE of the things that police provocateurs do is provoke
confrontation; another thing they do is provoke dissention and internal
conflict.  But I fail to see the relevance to this discussion (other than to
confuse things or divert attention away from the topic at hand) of things
discussed with respect to a different set of topics.

However, your bringing up "police provocateurs" provoking confrontation or
even dissention, which I brought up, ignores the fact that there can be all
kinds of provocateurs other than "police" and they may provoke all kinds of
things other than confrontation. Your focus on confrontation in this context
assumes that direct action and confrontation are identical or are
necessarily associated with violence.  Of course, neither is true; while I
have no inherent objections to either confrontation or violence but view
them in pragmatic terms as strategies and tactics to be used as needed when
they have the possibility of being effective in achieving a short or long
term goal, I did not specifically call for either confrontation or violence.
If anything, I called for an end to the use of the notion that more speech
is a remedy for "bad speech" in lieu of direct tangible and physical
non-verbal actions, which may or may not involve or result in confrontation.
In short, I am suggesting that maybe a change in behaviors, strategies,
tactics, and predilections are in order so as to shift priorities from
verbal speech and non-verbal symbolic expression to physical actions.

-----Original Message-----
From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:02 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'Matt Reichel'; ewj at pigs.ag; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: petition period has begun for next year's D
and R primaries

I thought we agreed that that's what "police provocateurs do ... if and when
they can ... provoking confrontation."


LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> As far as being active is concerned, I've always thought that the cure
for 
>> bad speech is more speech.  Do you think it's something else?
> 
> And that may be precisely why there is so much verbal diarrhea on this
list 
> and in the activist community which tends to identify action with speaking

> (is that a form of Identity politics or is it just the academic
predilection 
> of the current set of actors in this community).  Being active might 
> encompass such things as taking to the streets, engaging in a general
strike,
> stopping the establishment machine from carrying on business as usual,
etc.
> rather than oral and written discussions, debates, pontifications, quoting
> from academic and non-academic scribbling of other arm chair analysts who
> often make their livings from teaching in academia, lecturing and writing
of
> books, blogs, and other articles.  Maybe the cure for bad speech is the
sorts
> of non-verbal and often physical responses that it brings in other parts
of
> the world like Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net 
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. 
> Estabrook Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:43 PM To: Matt Reichel Cc:
> ewj at pigs.ag; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]
> Re: petition period has begun for next year's D and R primaries
> 
> Matt--
> 
> Aren't you involved in a contradiction when you say (quite rightly) "that 
> identity politics have been ruinous to the organized left" -- and then
call 
> my criticism of identity politics "a pseudo-intellectual mechanism"?
Which
> is it?
> 
> As to "coming to Wayne's defense," I'm not sure he'd see it that way.
Wayne 
> has shown himself quite able to provide for his own defence in what he 
> undoubtedly sees as an attempt to establish justice, promote the general
> welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for himself and his
posterity.
> (It is however true
> 
> that -- as far as this list is concerned -- he hasn't done much to insure 
> domestic tranquility: he seems to recall the prophecy of the late Abbie 
> Hoffman, that sacred cows will make the best hamburger.)
> 
> As far as being active is concerned, I've always thought that the cure for

> bad speech is more speech.  Do you think it's something else?
> 
> I do think it's a mistake, instead of contesting and even condemning what 
> someone says, to label it "hate speech" with the implication that it then
has
> no more right to free speech.  "If you're really in favor of free speech,
> then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you
> despise; otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech" [guess who].
> 
> Oh, and thank you for your congratulations on my retirement from the 
> University. Among other things, not teaching gives me more time to answer
> emails...
> 
> Regards, Carl
> 
> 
> Matt Reichel wrote:
>> I agree that class politics should be more prominent in the United States
> and
>> that identity politics have been ruinous to the organized left.
>> 
>> Nonetheless, this doesn't mean we should sit idly by while someone spews 
>> contemptible hate speech. None of the descriptors I used of Rosanna (and 
>> Wayne, by extension) were inappropriate, except for perhaps "wacko." And
> last
>> I checked this is a listserv for activists, who seem to spend too much
> time
>> staring at their computers and too little time being "active," to discuss

>> current events. One wouldn't expect to be held to academic writing
> standards
>> on an email listserv.
>> 
>> Rosanna Pulido was using her position of influence as the candidate of a 
>> major party for national office to spread vile hate speech about gays, 
>> Latinos, blacks and working class people. This is verbatim what Nazi
> fascists
>> did in Germany. As such, I am being perfectly appropriate in calling her
a 
>> hate-monger and fascist.
>> 
>> Lastly, I am ashamed to see Carl use a psuedo-intellectual mechanism,
i.e. 
>> his criticism of "identity politics," to come to Wayne's defense. The
> issue
>> here is not one of "free speech," or what organizing techniques are most 
>> industrious from a left perspective. The issue here is hate speech. By
all 
>> means, one has the "right" to spew it. However, as a scholar who is
> familiar
>> with the philosophical foundations of the rights discourse should know, 
>> "rights" come with "duties." In this case, the duty is to face the 
>> consequences of perpetuating lies, the typical Conservative rejection of 
>> science, and a call to bring hate upon a significant portion of the 
>> population. I am happy to know that you and your crazed defense of this 
>> society's most backward elements no longer teaches at the University.
>> 
>> Best, Matt