[Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for theCoup?
unionyes
unionyes at ameritech.net
Mon Feb 9 21:21:45 CST 2009
Whatever Laurie,
We can go round and round with circular logic, but in the end we are no closer to actually being able to mount an effective coalition of people in this country to end the rule of those who are destroying us and the world, and yes, racists would be unacceptable coalition partners.
In the meantime we are divided on trivial issues, and the corporate warmongers are laughing all the way to the bank, still firmly in control.
That is my final statement on the subject !
David J.
----- Original Message -----
From: LAURIE SOLOMON
To: 'unionyes'
Cc: 'Peace-discuss List'
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 9:03 PM
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for theCoup?
> The example you give Laurie, of Union leaders collaborating with management and hence " becoming the enemy ", is not accurate for this context.
That is possible; but I sort of doubt it. Are you telling me that those persons elected to leadership positions at the local and the national ( and even international) levels are not themselves union members but merely paid employees who do not have union membership and do not pay union dues? In my mind, if this is so, they have become the enemy in working with corporate management to insure corporate survival and profit, to maintain orderly processes that make their membership productive for the corporations, etc. without increasing the benefits and control of their membership or pursuing interests of their membership which may be opposition to the needs and desires of corporate management. Whether or not the Union leadership is being paid or are volunteering is not relevant.
>My motivation is not to pretend we don't all have differences of opinion at times about various issues, it is to TRY to build coalitions from diverse people, to >focus on critical issues, like WAR !
As I said in a private email to you, I understand your motivation, although I disagree that the list is or has been restricted to a single critical issue or even two critical issues. It is not your motivation that is or was in question; it is a matter of degree and type of disagreement that I am reacting to. One typically tries to build practical coalitions among those who do not have fundamental philosophical differences but from those whose disagreements are tactical or minor strategic difference of opinion regarding specifics. That is maybe why many coalitions do not last long; the partners have too many fundamental differences of which many are deep and long-term philosophical and theoretical and the common shared goals and objectives are short-term, immediate, practical, and temporary.
>If we disagree, it should be about strategy and tactics, not waste time discussing other unrelated issues.
I think that the philosophical and theoretical premises underlying one's conception of and position on strategy and tactics is neither a waste of time nor an unrelated issue. Typically, disagreements over strategy and tactics, priorities, and allocation of resources are rooted in differences in underlying values and perspectives, beliefs, and premises.
>. we should try to stay focused on anti-war organizing and welcome ALL those who agree with us on that subject to participate.
Hmmm! Given that the list is a voice of AWARE, which is both anti-war and anti-racist, why would we stay focused on only anti-war organizing? Are we to avoid discussions pertaining to racism?
Of course, you are proposing that an anti-war pro-racist should be welcomed to participate on the list as long as they were anti-war and spoke about anti-war organizing - like how we should not let blacks participate in public anti-war demonstrations because they are inherently inferior and not really human beings. I don't think so. I think that the fact that they were racist would be reason enough not to welcome them or let them participate in planning demonstrations or making organizing decisions. I think it would also be accepted that their racist beliefs would and should open them and their positions to question and criticsm.
From: unionyes [mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:23 AM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for theCoup?
The example you give Laurie, of Union leaders collaborating with management and hence " becoming the enemy ", is not accurate for this context.
To begin with, union members PAY union leaders to represent them, therefore they ( leaders ) are obligated to be our advocates. When they fail to do this they have violated a form of contract ( inadequate representation ).
However, good luck getting a corporate court to rule in the member's favor.
My motivation is not to pretend we don't all have differences of opinion at times about various issues, it is to TRY to build coalitions from diverse people, to focus on critical issues, like WAR !
Which is what I thought was the primary purpose of this list.
If we disagree, it should be about strategy and tactics, not waste time discussing other unrelated issues.
And I admit, I am as guilty as the next person at times, but we should try to stay focused on anti-war organizing and welcome ALL those who agree with us on that subject to participate.
David Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: LAURIE SOLOMON
To: 'unionyes' ; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 1:07 AM
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for theCoup?
>Accentuate the positive ( aggrement ), minimize the negative ( disagreement ) !
And then when we get done singing Juke Box Saturday Night Johnny Mercer & Harold Arlen tune, we all gather around the camp fire and sing "Cum Bye Ya."
Neither I nor anyone else on this list accentuates the positive and eliminates the negative when we speak of or describe those we regard as representatives of all we oppose so why should we make an exception of those who are on this list. It seems to me that this is exactly what your Union leaders have done with respect to corporate management; and in the process, they have become them. In the words of Pogo, we have met the enemy and they are us.
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of unionyes
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 8:30 PM
To: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Fw: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for theCoup?
----- Original Message -----
From: unionyes
To: E. Wayne Johnson
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for theCoup?
Here we go !
Some DEFINITE common ground with Wayne that EVERYONE on this list can agree upon.
That Hitler and Musolinni were EVIL !
Accentuate the positive ( aggrement ), minimize the negative ( disagreement ) !
David Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: E. Wayne Johnson
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'peace discuss'
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for theCoup?
Dont over-read my "certainly". There are things that are uncertain to me and thinks that I believe are certain.
Authoritarians may not be fools or idiots. Hitler and Mussolini were not exactly fools and idiots but I think
it is fair enough to characterize them as evil villains.
Courage to accept what?
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
Hmmm! Whenever someone starts a statement with "certainly," as you have done in the second sentence, I immediately and reflexively start hearing alarm bells going off in my head telling me to be careful because I may be dealing with some "true believer" who thinks that they have a corner on the market of truth and with whom one cannot engage in any sort of rational discourse with any possibility of changing their opinion, which they usually do not view as opinion, or reaching any sort of accommodation with as to compromise or acceptance of diversity. Unless one likes to talk for the sake of talking or argue for the joy of arguing, discussions with such a person are typically fruitless and a waste of time.
I do find it telling that you use "certainly" but do not even bother to qualify its usage with "in my opinion." This tells me you have arrogantly assumed a self-righteous position and are no longer engaged in discussion but are now prostylizing and evangelicalizing both your religious beliefs and secular beliefs as well. This is further evidenced - despite the civil wording and tone - by your use of negatively flavored language and disparaging portrayals (i.e., "the oppressive bondage of the totalitarian "nanny state".") to describe the opposing position with the implication that those who may believe that self-control is not all it is cracked up to be and that many times external authority and sanctions may be needed to produce the common good are fools, idiots, evil, villains. In fact, I find it interesting that (based on other writings by you) you do not even have the courage to accept the pure unqualified version of libertarianism but are perfectly willing to abandon notions of self-control and accept - if not promote - the oppressive bondage of the totalitarian "nanny state" when it suits your needs and beliefs (such as the protection of private property; the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the protection of individualism, among others).
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of E. Wayne Johnson
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 8:59 AM
To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
Cc: peace discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?
Wow, pretty good. You've thought about this for awhile Jenifer.
Certainly self-control is far more valuable and desirable than the oppressive bondage of
the totalitarian "nanny state".
Do you prefer the flexible molded magnets shaped like a pair of stone tablets
or the ones that have the magnet glued on the back?
"You were called for liberty (eleutheria), but take care that don't just use this liberty as a resource and excuse for the fulfilling the selfishness of the biological nature of the flesh, but in love you should serve one another. The whole letter of law, both the commandments and the derived corollaries, as regarding human relationships, is readily complied with in one statement, "you shall love your neighbour as yourself".
- after Paul, Galatians 5.13-14.
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
Wow, I was just stating the obvious, duh -- I didn't think I'd said anything that anybody could possibly disagree with!
So.... what would YOUR ideal society look like, Wayne? No rules, regs, laws, or gov'ts... and survival of the fittest? The Ten Commandments printed on refrigerator magnets, with implementation left to the honor system and God's revenge??
--Jenifer
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?
To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
Cc: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>, "peace discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 2:01 PM
"Go and learn what this means..." "The Law killeth, but the Spirit giveth life".
I suppose that one of the great benefits of this country being a federation of united States is that the people in each individual state can
determine just what degree of intrusion of the authoritarian police power they are willing to tolerate, and people can then freely
associate themselves to authoritarian or free societies depending upon their values and ability to tolerate inexact fit.
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
Re John's point about human nature: even if we argue that most people are kind, generous, and good, there are always those few who are not... and regardless of the economic systems in which they're operating, some of these ruthless types will make their way to the top by stepping on the backs of others UNLESS there are laws in place -- and enforced -- that prevent it.
Some people (those who don't want their immorality interferred with) love to say that "you can't legislate morality." Well, my view is that it's the responsibility of gov't to use both sticks and carrots. The gov't first must rule that certain immoral behaviors are illegal, and then must enforce that ruling by imposing penalties -- the civil rights act of 1964 comes to mind. The gov't also sweetens the pot by allowing philanthropists to deduct certain charitable contributions on their taxes... which is the main reason that so many rich folks give so much money to worthy causes. And in this way, the gov't sets the tone, and people (not all of them, but more than otherwise) do eventually become more ethical (e g comparison of the treatment and rights of African-Americans immediately before- and now, long after the civil rights act of '64).
--Jenifer
--- On Fri, 2/6/09, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Cc: "peace discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 7:15 PM
Here is a point on which Carl and I agree, though his interest in the topic is more academic, let us say, than mine. Capitalism was the root cause of racial discrimination rather than the reverse, and it's the source of just about all of our other disparities as well.
However, I go a step further and identify unregenerate human nature as the real culprit. Humans, by and large, are self-centered, grasping, fearful little creatures who are more interested in getting ahead of their neighbor than in sharing their bounty with him/her. It doesn't matter what "system" we operate under, be it monarchy or capitalism or communism or what have you. Some humans always seem to figure out a way to oppress their fellow humans, and rationalize their behavior in myriad ways. They don't even consider it oppression, they consider it "working hard" or "living right" or whatever - even when they don't work and live on the income from a trust fund! And in that Marti is absolutely right; by failing to recognize their privilege and surrender at least some of it for the common good, they perpetuate and exacerbate the evil.
I continue to wonder at the factors which caused Europeans, just in the last half of the last century, to get it more nearly right than most other societies in history.
JW
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
I wouldn't call it limousine liberalism, but John is correct I think to suggest that there is a tendency in recent American liberalism to substitute diversity for (economic) equality as the goal of progressive politics.
The argument is sharply set out by Walter Benn Michaels in "The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality" (2006). And it's been argued that the real story of Tom Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" (2004) is that the working class abandoned the Democratic party when the Democrats abandoned economic equality (insofar as they ever embraced it) in favor of diversity.
Benn Michaels summarized his argument in a recent issue of the British journal, "New Left Review." Here is his conclusion:
"...the answer to the question, 'Why do American liberals carry on about racism and sexism when they should be carrying on about capitalism?', is pretty obvious: they carry on about racism and sexism in order to avoid doing so about capitalism. Either because they genuinely do think that inequality is fine as long as it is not a function of discrimination (in which case, they are neoliberals of the right). Or because they think that fighting against racial and sexual inequality is at least a step in the direction of real equality (in which case, they are neoliberals of the left). Given these options, perhaps the neoliberals of the right are in a stronger position -- the economic history of the last thirty years suggests that diversified elites do even better than undiversified ones. But of course, these are not the only possible choices."
<http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2731>
John W. wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com <mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm definitely not in favor of refusal to recognize privilege. But I presume
that in a non-racist society, if everyone woke up one day and discovered that
by some mysterious process, a chunk of their neighbors were
disproportionately excluded from the economic benefits that the society had
to offer, people would move to address the disparity.
You gotta be shitting me, Robert. Surely you jest? You have neighbors right
here on this mailing list who are disproportionately excluded from the
economic benefits that society has to offer, and it has nothing to do with
race, and no one on this list is doing a damned thing about it or is GOING to
do a damned thing about it. Whenever I talk about poverty, lack of health
insurance, etc., from a personal perspective, I get a blank stare from the
limousine liberals. "Get a life," they say, or "Be warmed and filled," to
quote the Good Book. I daresay that most of the readers of this list care
more about people in Pakistan than they do about their neighbors, at least in
terms of doing anything pragmatic to help them.
I'll probably live to regret that comment, but there it is.
So, the fact that such disparities persist in our society, and the fact that
we don't move successfully to redress them, to me is evidence enough of
racism; no other story is necessary.
You ain't read enough stories, apparently. There are many types of disparities in our society, and many complex causes of such disparities.
Racism is an important one, but it is only one.
That doesn't mean that other stories don't have value, and might not also be important to achieving the end of redress, but I see no need to posit them as
prerequisites, and some reason not to; since it might be the case, for
example, that some people have a psychological barrier against recognizing
privilege, but not against redress justified on some other basis.
You lost me there. Not that it matters.
_______________________________________________Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1939 - Release Date: 2/7/2009 1:39 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1941 - Release Date: 2/9/2009 6:50 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1941 - Release Date: 2/9/2009 6:50 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090209/482c375e/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list