[CIMC-work] Proposal: A call for a unified IMC response to Zionist solic...

Tue Jun 29 23:19:24 PDT 2004

I continue to support Chris K.'s proposal initiative. However, it seems 
apparent from recent exchanges that this collective does not have complete 
agreement or understanding of what Zionism is, let alone why it is problematic and why 
a proposal re Zionist solicitations to global has merit. So: I propose that 
we actually take up this proposal first for discussion and consensus within our 
collective before we forward anything onto global.

I am also perplexed by some of the language in recent posts, specifically:

"I admire that the pink people take a stand on racial issues. It is useful to 
talk to the colored people about what their positions actually are." Thomas 
Yun, Tue Jun 29

I'm not sure what this means. Thomas, do you mean to suggest that people of 
color -- specifically Palestinians -- have not rallied in with an opinion on 
Zionism? (You did mean people of color rather than 'colored people', right? 
Because if you had used the latter term to refer to the people of color I know in 
their presence, they would first think about punching you out, and then write 
you off as an asshole not worthy of even dignifying that kind of crack with a 
response. I'll assume that in your typing haste, you just got it wrong.) If 
that's the case, you should know that among the many Palestinians with whom I 
have worked over the years, I have yet to meet one who adopts a 'moderate' 
stance on the issue of Zionism. Their understanding of zionism is quite simple: 
zionism is racism. Or should your statement above be read instead as an assertion 
that 'pink people' in the collective are out of pocket for publicly stating 
their opposition to Zionism, a racist ideology, and that only people of color 
should rally in with an opinion on this?  If the latter interpretation is more 
accurate, that would then imply that any anti-racist solidarity work among 
pink people lacks legitimacy. You didn't mean that, did you?

"If there is some need for folks to pound their chests about how strongly 
they feel about ethnic cleansing and racial violence... whatever. (Force 
paragraph.) As far as Zionism goes, I am not intelligent enough nor informed enough as 
others are to simply equate Zionism with ethnic cleansing and racial 
violence." Thomas Yun, Tue Jun 29

Hence my assertion that we should have a discussion within this collective to 
clear up any confusion on this issue. I would be happy to propose a number of 
Palestinians in Chicago that we could invite to a collective meeting to speak 
to this issue. We already have other people -- including people of Jewish 
heritage -- in this collective that can speak to the issue of Zionism, so I feel 
confident that 'both sides' will be represented. Oh, wait, all the Jews in the 
collective are anti-Zionist. Perhaps we should invite someone from the 
Anti-Defamation League or AIPAC to speak to the issue instead. Or perhaps people 
should just read some fucking books and talk to some Palestinians who've had the 
misfortune to live under Israeli occupation to get a sense of how 'moderate' 
our position on Zionism should be.

While we're at it, why not take up the issue of our position on racism in 
general? Perhaps people are also confused about that. We could invite Stan 
Willis, Gwen Hogan, George Morris, Costella Cannon, Jose Lopez, Emma Lozano and May 
Molina -- oops, sorry, racism's killed her already -- to speak on behalf of 
people of color. And to make sure the other side is represented, we could invite 
police superintendent Phil Cline and the local chapter of the KKK to present 
their views. Oops, Cline IS a member of that chapter. We'll have to find 
someone else. How about Terry Hillard, the former police superintendent, a man of 
African heritage, and a person who turned a blind eye to rampant racism in his 
own department while he was head of detectives -- and while his detective, 
white boy Jon Burge, was running a torture ring that terrorized people of color. 
That mix of folks ought to make for a healthy exchange of opinions on the 
matter. Or, alternatively, people could again read some fucking books and actually 
share struggle with people FROM AFFECTED COMMUNITIES who are working on 
issues of racism, zionism, economic oppression, et al.

Let me also point out that the last time I checked, the genetic 
predisposition to the color of one's skin did not necessarily favorably impact a person's 
political positions, even on critical issues that impact other people who share 
their skin color or their heritage. Just ask J.C. Watts, Clarence Thomas, 
Colin Powell or Condi Rice. 

For the record, I can actually produce the people I named above as 
anti-racists and anti-zionists, because I work with them, support them, break bread with 
them, and do media work that advocates on issues of critical importance to 
them. They are my comrades. I have credibility with them because I have earned 
it. Don't take my word for it. Ask them. Why am I "pounding my chest about how 
strongly I feel about ethnic cleansing and racial violence", to crib Thomas' 
words in one of the posts cited above? Because there seems to be a lack of 
clarity among some in this collective on some of these critical issues. And guess 
what? One's skin color alone does not lend credibility to one's capacity to 
pronounce opinions on these issues. One's track record of struggle and 
commitment to principle does.

We should take up Chris K.'s proposal -- reworded for clarity -- in this 
collective first to clear this confusion up once and for all. Let me also note 
that we should wholeheartedly support the push to expand gender diversity and 
racial diversity in this collective. Let me also note that it's important for 
people to know that many members of disenfranchised communities feel that they 
are represented here -- because their comrades are here. We should redouble our 
efforts to broaden our diversity -- and I would argue, along class lines as 
well. What marks the condition of most people of color in this city is that they 
also happen to be working class. The core constitencies of this collective 
are not served by creeping bourgeois individualism -- a praxis opposed by 
anarchists (at least the ones who know what anarchism means...don't take my word for 
it, either; read Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, two of anarchism's best 
known theorists), communists, and leftists across lines of tendency and 
party.

In preparation for these little study groups, I'd suggest that participants 
take a look at Indymedia's evolving principles of unity. Language in those 
principles which has NEVER been contentious clearly states: "All IMC's shall be 
committed to the principle of human equality, and shall not discriminate, 
including discrimination based upon race, gender, age, class or sexual orientation."

Zionism is antithetical to that principle. 

christine

In a message dated 6/29/2004 1:55:51 PM Central Standard Time, 
mayday at riseup.net writes:

> Subj: Re: [CIMC-work] Proposal: A call for a unified IMC response to 
> Zionist solicitations 
>  Date: 6/29/2004 1:55:51 PM Central Standard Time
>  From: mayday at riseup.net
>  To: DickReilly at aol.com
>  CC: imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
>  Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Dick,
> 
> I don't like what you are implying about my position or lack thereof.  You
> don't know what it is.  I admire that the pink people take a stand on
> racial issues.  It is useful to talk to the colored people about what
> their positions actually are.
> 
> paz,
> t
> y
> 
> DickReilly at aol.com said:
> >Hi all.
> >I agree as well with Chris K.s efforts and commend his work to date.
> >
> >BTW, my only concerns about 'language'of any proposal is not that it
> >creates controversy or might be seen by some as 'polarizing', or
> >uncomfortable,  but that it remains accurate and factual. I assuredly am
> >not a 'moderate' on the issue of racist ideology and ethinic cleansing. I
> >advocate a policy of zero tolerance for both.
> >
> >- Dick Reilly
> >
> >- Dick Reilly
> >_______________________________________________
> >Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> >Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> >http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> "The Day After Tomorrow" is rated Pg-13. Millions of people die, but
> nobody swears, copulates, undresses or takes drugs.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040630/4bed6b0c/attachment.htm