[mobglob-discuss] A radical idea !

[Bella]

Mac,

This is just the kind of resolution I was hoping would come forth. I'm
looking forward to Rick and Arthurs comments as well.

I also hope that everyone who wants to (including Rick and Arthur) can be
involved in pulling together a succinct basis of unity around the racism
issue and how to handle it when it rears it ugly head.  I'm hoping Mobglob
will call a meeting to focus on this very thing.  The basis of unity could
be submitted to other activist groups for endorsement, and Mobglob, being
the drafter of such a groundbreaking document, would be leading the way
into creating a solidarity within the overall movement in this regard.
That would certainly be something to be proud of. It would also be a very
powerful tool and legacy.

Yeah, I guess my example wasnt the greatest, but at least my point got
across that we all have diverse views, each one with some value except of
course very extreme hurtful ones. I didnt mean to offend any IS's out
there, not at all.

Thanks for being big about it.
Shirley 




--- Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby at dojo.tao.ca> wrote:
> I'll make this the last of it then, Bella.
> 
> I'll deal a little with your questions/comments and propose we come up 
> with guidelines for how anti-oppressive relations need to work. What 
> kind of lines are we going to draw? What is and is not okay in our 
> movement? Let's try to hash that out. How do we define racism? Is it a 
> construct of bad attitudes, or is it systemic and problematic? What of 
> the far-right attempts to infiltrate the anti-globalisation movement 
> throughout Europe and North America? Is this an issue that anti-racists 
> should take up? Can we come to a basis of unity against any and all 
> forms of racial-conspiracy mongering? not simple conspiracy mongering, 
> you understand- the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, the attempt to 
> undermine our health system, etc.
> 
> But how about: we do not believe that the "Zionist Occupational 
> Government" runs North America. Can we at least agree to that and hold 
> our members to the same? Would that be censorship or a very tame and 
> simple statement (one would hope simple). Let us kick around some basic 
> forumlas then, of what we want in an anti-racist statement of 
> principles. I'll leave that as a request, and see what comes of it.
> 
> Another time, another place for the discussion of the paper is fine. 
> But so far as the Radical and the comparison to the Socialist Worker 
> paper, I don't read the SW, I'm not a particular fan. That doesn't mean 
> it is dangerous, nor do I find it offensive. I just don't happen to 
> subscribe to the particular anti-capitalist take of the SW, but it is 
> just another progressive paper. Different issue entirely... 
> 
> As far as the testosterone level of the postings, I'm certain you are 
> correct-- as I'm spending way too much office time in here on this 
> bloody thing. Helping work out frustrations, you might say.
> 
> One last thing: The "left" isn't censoring the left, the left is 
> attempting to make clear exactly what "left" means. 
> 
> Taking anti-misogyny sideswipes will never bother me. People might 
> think otherwise, but I find most repressed groups taking shots like 
> this to be a (possibly bad) form of resistance.
> 
> Macdonald
> 
> 
> 
> Bella <bella_donna_36 at yahoo.com> said:
> 
> > How about if anyone doesn't like the Radical, don't read it. There are
> > publications, tvshows, newspapers, columnists, 'isms' and individuals 
> out
> > there that people disagree with for various reasons.  For example, 
> there
> > are activists that don't agree with every article in IS literature 
> either,
> > but nobody goes on the attack about it or confronts IS paper-sellers 
> at
> > actions (please dont label me for using this example).  Everyone is
> > entitled to their own political views, religious beliefs, etc. 
> Diversity
> > is such a wonderful thing.
> > 
> > Racism should not be tolerated, however the left censoring the left is
> > equally appalling.
> > 
> > I think Mac, Rick and Arthur each have some valid points, and this 
> subject
> > is worth discussing in a rational way. However, the testosterone 
> level of
> > the thread has gotten cranked right up (Oh gawd, I hope I'm not 
> labelled
> > as a male-ist), and degenerated to what comes across as muscle-
> flexing,
> > typical male bullshit (pardon my French - oops, I hope you dont think 
> I'm
> > a seperatist).  The discussion is not rational anymore, the finger
> > pointing is childish and the head butting is getting boring.  It's 
> making
> > Mobglob look a bunch of whiney-baby infighters.  Is there any 
> conclusion
> > on the horizon to this?
> > 
> > I hope you don't think I'm just being "bitchy" cuz that would make 
> you a
> > misogynist. I'd really like to work with all of you, and I'm taking 
> this
> > in stride. It just seems that words are picked apart so quickly 
> (hence my
> > sarcastic interjections - I hope my point has been made).  I'm mostly
> > interested in how you guys will resolve this, which will be very 
> telling.
> > 
> > Peace, love and resolution,
> > Shirley
> > 

=====
talk-action=nothing

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com