Monthly Archives: February 2009

Humboldt State Students Confront Anti-Muslim Bigotry by Jesse Thomson-Burns

Feb 28

Militant chants silence pro-Zionist meeting

On Feb. 18, a group of Humboldt State University organizers and activists occupied a building on the Arcata, Calif., campus where right-wing Christian evangelist Walid Shoebat gave a speech on the “evils” of what he calls the “satanic cult” of Islam. Shoebat, a Zionist, claims he was once a Palestine Liberation Organization fighter. He was hosted by the Campus Conservatives.

Humboldt State University protest against Walid Shoebat 02-18-09
Humboldt State University students protest against
Zionist speaker Walid Shoebat, Feb. 18.

It is unlikely that Shoebat was ever a member of the PLO. Bank Leumi in Bethlehem, which Shoebat claims to have bombed, has stated that it has no record of such an attack ever taking place. When asked by the Jerusalem Post whether word of the bombing made the news at the time, he said, “I don’t know. I didn’t read the papers because I was in hiding for the next three days.” In 2004, he contradicted himself, telling The Sunday Telegraph, “I was terribly relieved when I heard on the news later that evening that no one had been hurt or killed by my bomb.”

The night of the protest in Humboldt started out tense. The chair of the right-wing meeting announced that there were video cameras recording the event and security guards waiting to remove people if necessary. From the beginning of the talk, there were vocal disputes with the speaker and a small scuffle when a right-winger tried to physically remove a demonstrator.

But people’s anger boiled over as the speaker continued to express Zionist bigotry and reiterate blatantly racist generalizations. The demonstrators all got up at once with banners reading, “Stop Islamophobia,” “Free Gaza” and other slogans.

They took over the sides of the auditorium. The talk went on, but every racist attack from Shoebat was met with rebuttals from the demonstrators and members of the audience.

After the speech, there was time for questions and answers. All the questions asked were questioning Shoebat’s credentials as a former PLO member and the basis for the sweeping generalizations he made about Islam. Rather than answering the questions, Shoebat resorted to hurling insults against the questioners.

After the talk, a demonstration of more than 100 people gathered outside the building. The participants expressed disbelief that HSU would allow such a bigot to come speak on campus. Others feared that Shoebat’s talk would help spread hate and bigotry throughout the university and the community.

Humboldt State students have made it clear that they will not allow anti-Muslim bigots like Shoebat to come to their campus and leave in peace. Students have also expressed their solidarity with the people of Palestine and support for the continued struggle by the heroic men, women and children for their homeland. Long Live Palestine!

Posted in Religion & Spirituality

European Toxic Waste Dumped in Africa

Feb 26

Originally from the Party for Socialism and Liberation

Imperialists turn oppressed countries into dumpster

In one of capitalism’s latest crimes against the people of Africa, dealers from Europe and the United States have been discovered dumping toxic waste from computers in countries such as Nigeria and Ghana. The revelation follows an investigation by Greenpeace, Sky News and The Independent.

Imperialist countries have turned African countries into dumping grounds for their toxic waste.

Once the computers and television sets end up in the African dumps, people break apart the equipment in search of raw materials like copper that can be sold for cash. In this process, African people are being exposed to extremely toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead and cadmium, as well as phthalates, plastic softeners and dioxins that are known to promote cancer.

“Chemicals like lead are very dangerous, especially for children. They affect the brain when it is developing and therefore cause a lower IQ when they grow up,” Greenpeace’s Kim Schoppink says.

According to the United Nations, between 20 and 50 million tons of e-waste are generated around the world each year. Under international law, these computers must be dismantled or safely recycled, not dumped. However, hundreds of thousands of broken or outdated computers and television sets are labeled as “usable second hand” products and sold to dealers.

“We basically managed to track a TV going from the UK allegedly as second-hand equipment to Nigeria,” Iza Kruszewskahe from Greenpeace told the BBC’s Focus on Africa program. Kruszewskahe explained that they put a tracking device in the television to follow it through the recycler and to Nigeria.

One of the places that this toxic “e-waste” ends up is at the Agbobloshie dumpsite in Accra, Ghana, where the chemicals contaminate ground water, surface water, rivers and streams.

Many of the scavengers in the Agbobloshie dump are children and teens. Ibrahim Adams, age 15, was interviewed during the BBC program. He explained that he was looking for copper, which he could sell to raise money for his school fees.

Dumping obsolete computers in Africa instead of recycling them provides a snapshot picture of what is wrong with the capitalist system. In order to increase profit, consumers are urged to constantly update computers and TVs. In addition, products are intentionally designed to break down or become obsolete after a few years, requiring consumers to by new ones.

Manufacturers cut corners by using toxic materials in the manufacturing process. Later, to save more money, the products are dumped in Africa instead of being properly recycled. Meanwhile, the poorest people in Africa—people who must scavenge at a dump to survive—are paying the price through toxic exposure. Why are people so poor in Africa? It is not because continent lacks natural resources; rather, the widespread poverty is a product of centuries of colonialist and imperialist exploitation of the continent.

Exposés such as this one, conducted by Greenpeace, are very useful. E-waste recycling laws came about through the insistence of the environmental movement, not because capitalist governments care.

The cause of this outrage is the capitalist system. The only real solution to the crisis of toxic dumping is economic planning for people’s needs and safety, not for profit. Under socialist planning, we could guarantee that computers and TVs are designed to last a long time. We could address the problems posed by toxic materialsand strictly enforce laws requiring that e-waste be recycled. With the profit motive gone, we could create relationships among nations that are based on solidarity, not exploitation.

Posted in Ecological Struggles, Globalization

Tags: The African Continent

Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism!

Feb 26

Here in Canada we are gearing up at most universities for a week long series of events known as Israeli Apartheid Week, and already the Zionists are, as can be expected, are crawling out of the wood work to try and defend their racist European colony in the Middle East. The more banal, but still aggravating, attacks have come the various branches of Israel on Campus, who at my university have launched a complaint against Students for Palestinian Rights’ use of the term “apartheid” with regards to the Israeli state’s policies. However, perhaps the most serious attack on the events and the associated student groups has come in the form of a newspaper article from the National Post, in which the author has laid out the classic accusation that anti-Zionism is the same thing as antisemiticism. This is probably one the more common obfuscating tactics of pro-Zionist forces in North America, as immediately any mention of antisemiticism immedielty conjours up certain images in the minds of most people. In this way the Israelis and their allies are able to distract people from the real issues around the violent Israeli colonial-settler occupation of Palestine by simply dismissing all dissent and criticism as antisemeticism. But it is not just the student groups associated with IAW that have had this accusation leveled at them, as Sid Ryan, the head of CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees), which has just endorsed a boycott of Israel, has also been accused of antisemiticism and an enabler.

So long as it is the case that any critique of Israel is accused of being tainted with antisemiticism no real criticism of the Israeli will be able to survive long enough to reach a critical mass of people. To help in my own little way towards this end, I have gone back and dug up with article that I wrote over a year ago, back when me and this blog were just starting out.

—

Before we can even begin discussing why anti-Zionism and antisemiticism are not the same thing we must begin with admitting that, yes, the two have often had a history of co-mingling with each other. Indeed before the 1960s, much of Western anti-Zionism was an extension of pre-existing antisemitism in Western Christian society. While the two positions need not be shared, there is a strong tendency label all anti-Zionists as antisemitic by groups such as the ADL and B’nai B’rith. Because of this, a large amount of debate revolves around the relationship between the two positions. The issue is also certainly not helped by the fact that many who are self-identiefied as antisemites are also stated anti-Zionists (it would be hard to imagine a pro-Israel neo-Nazi)

Some, such as the already mentioned ADL and B’nai B’rith, make the claim that criticism of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and they attribute this to antisemitic positions and feelings inherant in the critics. Critics of Zionism, such as me, however tend to hold the view that associating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. I can attest to this myself, as I have been accused more than a few times as being antisemitic because of my anti-Zionist positions, and the conversation always ends there. All one has to do is go to facebook and look up anti-Zionism in the groups and you will find about ten “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” groups and about a thousand groups with names like “anti-Zionism is antisemitism!!!!!!”

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times once wrote that “[c]riticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction—out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East—is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”

As a revolutionary socialist I am opposed to both Zionism in theory (being an extension of European imperialism in the Middle East), and also to the actual policies on the ground of the State of Israel. First, I agree with the position that Judaism is not an ethnic group. This commonly heald notion is rather flimsy and can be defeated by simply looking at the fact that we have Jews from all over Europe: Slavic ones, Germanic ones, and those from Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, and Italy). People of the Jewish religion are also found in Ethiopia (where they have a long and ancient history) and the rest of Africa, other parts of the Middle East, the Caucuses and as far east as eastern India and Bangladesh. In effect Judaism is actually a multi-ethnic religious group, and to this day still accepts converts regardless of ethnic background. They may share a common culture and language in some cases, but this is far from a universal truth. Internally Judaism and Jewish culture are just as varied as its sister religions of Christianity and Islam, and so in the opinion of many, claiming that somehow Judaism is an ethnic group, and hence deserves some sort of ethnic or national homeland is just as absurd as claiming that Christianity, Islam or indeed any other religion is an ethnic group. The ADL states that Zionism is the national expression of the Jewish people, but as with before, this is just as crazy as saying that something called “Christianism” is the national expression of the Christian people. So now that we can dismiss Judaism-as-ethnicity claims, we can move onto the matter of Zionism in theory, and that is that is in practice a form of imperialism, as opposed to the often said claim of Zionists that it is the national self-determination of the Jews. If we look at the creation of Israel we can see eerie parallels between it and the foundation of other imperialist colonial-settler states such the United States and Canada. The goal of Zionism was and still is the creation of a so-called Jewish state out of the land already occupied by the Palestinian people. Yes there were Jews on the land, but they were from a majority, and they lived in relatively peaceful co-existence with their Arab neighbours. Some of the most vocal critics of Zionism have tended to be Palestinians and other Arabs, whom view Israel as wrongfully occupying what they view as the land of the Palestinians. Such critics generally opposed Israel’s creation in 1948, and continue to criticize the Zionist movement which underlies it. These critics view the changes in demographic balance which accompanied the creation of Israel, including the displacement of some 700,000 Arab refugees, and the accompanying violence, as negative but inevitable consequences of Zionism and the concept of a Jewish State. I also agree with some critics of Zionism, in asserting that Zionism is a form of exclusivism, both in its support of Israel as a “Jewish” state, and in its continuing policies such as the Law of Return.

Now as to the policies of Israel, like the above they generally fall into two categories: its’ treatment of the remaining Palestinian people, and its’ exclusivist policies such as the right of return. As to the first, the crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians are many fold, one only to look at the creation of the wall around the Gaza Strip to see what I mean. The excuse for such measures is often the national security of Israel, however such policies are too broad in their application and to brutal in their results. They seek to punish the entirety of the Palestinians, when on the whole they are not terrorists or Islamic extremists. This would be like the United States bombing the entire Arab world for the crimes of Al Qaeda. To the second I will focus one primary example, the so-called Law of Return.

Originating in 1950, when the memory of World War II and the Holocaust were still fresh, it gives Jews, being those with a Jewish mother or grandmother (for those familiar with Jewish law, if a person’s mother is Jewish, they are considered to be born a Jew, regardless of how they are raised or what religion or lack of religion they hold), or a spouse of such a Jew, or a convert to Judaism (Orthodox, Reformed, or Conservative – not secular or so called Messianic or Christian Jews- though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages) the right to migrate to and settle in Israel and gain citizenship.

Those who are eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return are immediately granted citizenship. Controversy has arisen as to whether all those claiming citizenship rights under the Law of Return should be registered as “Jewish” citizens for census purposes. Jewish status is traditionally granted according to the halakhic definition of being Jewish– if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish as well or if you convert to Judaism (though conversions to Reform and Conservative Judaism streams are generally not recognized by many people in Israel). However, any Jew regardless of affiliation may return and claim citizenship in Israel.

Originally, the Law of Return was restricted to Jews only. A 1970 amendment, however, stated that, “The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law…are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew” (Law of Return).

Of course this policy does actually have the effect (likely intended) of offsetting the Jewish-Arab demographics even more than they already were after the initial war of “independence”.

The Law of Return is part of a larger system of discrimination whereby Israeli Jews are given superior civil and social rights over Israeli Arabs. I will further claim the Law of Return runs counter to the claims of Israel being a democratic state and that Israeli support for the Law of Return for the Jews, excuses and maintains the act of ethnic cleansing that dispossessed the Palestinian refugees more than half a century ago.

So in the end, these four reasons come together to form my anti-Zionist position. I actually used to be an extremely vocal proponent of Zionism back when I was a Christian, but since that time I have slowly backed down from the position and began to reassess my views, and also did some wider reading on the issue. I am not antisemitic in anyway, I do not hate the Jewish people, I am opposed to a strand of thought and to the policies of a state, and as I said before, the accusation that holding such positions is equivalent to harbouring a hatred for a people is obscene and would look like merely being a tactic to distract serious critical discussion about Israeli policies. To me, to make such claims has about the same validity as saying “I am opposed to the policies of the United States, therefor I must hate the American people”, it stupefying at best.

Posted in Imperialism & Colonialism, Radical History

Latinos Now Account for 40 percent of All Federal Prisoners

Feb 25

A rescent study has shown that people of various Latino nationalities now account for some 40 percent of all federal inmates in the United States, making them the largest national group to be oppressed by the federal prison system. As of 2007, Latinos accounted for only 13 percent of the general population of the United States. In the federal prison population, they are overrepresented by over 300 percent.

According to the Pew Research Foundation, U.S. Sentencing Commission data from 1991 to 2007 showed that nearly half of all Latinos in federal prison were convicted of immigration violations, followed closely by non-violent drug crimes at 37 percent. Latinos convicted of federal offenses are more likely to be sentenced to prison than people of other nationalities.

Between 1991 and 2007, the law enforcement budget ballooned, and the number of federal inmates sentenced for immigration violations spiked by approximately 267 percent. The federal government has expanded its war against immigrant workers, particularly Latino workers, resulting in the growing incarceration of Latinos. The exploitation of oppressed communities is intrinsically tied to the prison system, where African Americans represent about 39 percent of all inmates.

Posted in National Oppression, Prisons & Prisoner Struggles

“Return Him to Us!”: American Indians Demand the Return of Geronimo’s Remains”

Feb 25

Twenty descendants of Geronimo have filed a lawsuit against several top U.S. government figures as of Feb. 17th, the 100th years after Geronimo’s death as a U.S. prisoner of war. The suit, filed in federal court, demands that Geronimo’s remains and funerary objects be freed “from a century of wrongful confinement by the U.S. Army at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma” where they have been kept since he died of pneumonia at the hands of the U.S. military.

Geronimo bravely fought against the U.S. Army's massacre of his people. His descendants are now seeking the return of his remains.

Geronimo, who was born Goyahklo in 1829, was a Bedonkohe Apache. As a leader and fighter in the American Indian resistance movement against the U.S. Army in the late 19th century, he became a symbol of the American Indian struggle. As the settler-colonial U.S. government continued its westward expansion in North America, its forces brutally massacred and stole the ancient lands of the Indians living there.

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of the Army Pete Geren are named as defendants because Geronimo’s remains are under control of the U.S. government. Geronimo died while in the custody of the U.S. Army.

Other defendents in the lawsuit include Yale University and the Order of Skull and Bones. Yale is a private, mostly white bourgeois university in New Haven, Conn., with a history of oppression against working people, including opposition to unions and support for pervasive gentrification. Skull and Bones is a self-described secret society at Yale. Former Yale students, including Alexandra Robbins, author of the 2002 book “Secrets of the Tomb,” maintain that Geronimo’s skull was stolen by members of Skull and Bones in 1918 and is still kept in their “tomb.” Prescott Bush, the grandfather of George W. Bush, was supposedly among the thieves.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., Geronimo’s great-grandson Harlyn Geronimo said: “It’s been 100 years since 1909, since the death of my great grandfather. And you look at it, it’s been 100 years of imprisonment yet, not counting the time he was sent into imprisonment in Florida from 1886 to 1909. That was another 25 years there. It’s my belief … it’s a good cause because Indigenous over centuries have been annihilated, removed from their homelands.”

The descendants of Geronimo would re-inter his remains in the Gila Wilderness in southwestern New Mexico, closer to where he was born.

This case exemplifies the historic crimes committed against American Indians by the U.S. government. The law unambiguously guarantees the descendants control over the remains. Continuing its tradition of trampling the rights of Indigenous peoples, the government has instead turned Geronimo’s remains into a tourist attraction. The struggle to right this wrong is a continuation of the struggle for Native American self-determination.

Posted in Indigenous Struggles, Radical History

Leonard Peltier Remembers Bob Robideau

Feb 23

Greetings my relatives!
By Leonard Peltier

It is with a real deep sense of loss that I write this. The loss of my brother in the struggle for Indigenous rights who was also my blood cousin and also a defendant in the Oglala shoot-out trials. I am speaking of Robert Robideau, who we called Bob most of the time. Bob was a tireless campaigner for my freedom and Indigenous rights all over the world. I can’t express enough how greatly his leaving this level of existence will be missed.

Bob and I grew up together. We were involved in the 70’s American Indian Movement together. We were shot at together. We were on the run together and over the 33 years of my imprisonment, Bob was a person I could count on for a lot of reasons. We laughed together, quarreled with one another, praised one another and had strong disagreements at times. Bob was the one person I could truly count on to tell me the straight of it, whether I liked it or not. I didn’t talk to Bob in person that often, as of late, but just the thought of knowing it will be a while before I talk with him again, causes a sense of missing him like never before. He was sometimes my worst critic and sometimes my best support, but he was always my brother and I loved him dearly. I wouldn’t doubt that wherever he is at, he’s organizing a support group of some sort. If I thought there was anything that I could say that would bring him back to us, this statement would go on for as long as it took. However, reality being what it is, I know Bob will appreciate our concerns for the loved ones he left behind and want us to go on and do the very best we can to make this a better and more free, more just world we live in and he would surely remind us that we are the guardians of the future and the keepers of today.

It is always difficult to address the loss of people you knew and cared about, but every once in awhile, there is a loss that is deeper than all the rest. In this loss, there is often a loss of words. It is a time when the shock of the situation is so close that you just don’t know what to say. One thing I can say for sure is that the loss of Bob Robideau is a loss to all. And to Bob, I don’t know how long I’ll be here myself, but that doesn’t matter. I look forward to seeing you again my brother, some other time, some other place. May the Creator be with you wherever you are and wherever you go.

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, Bob Robideau, Steve Robideau, Joe Stuntz, Bobby Garcia, Roque Duenas, Nilak Butler, Anna Mae Aquash, , and all the others who gave of themselves for our People.

Mitakuye oyasin

Posted in Armed Struggle & Direct Action, Indigenous Struggles, Prisons & Prisoner Struggles

Nine Perspectives for Prison Abolitionists

Feb 23

Perspective 1

Imprisonment is morally reprehensible and indefensible and must be abolished. In an enlightened free society, prison cannot endure or it will prevail. Abolition is a long term goal; an ideal. The eradication of any oppressive system is not an easy task. But it is realizable, like the abolition of slavery or any liberation, so long as there is the will to engage in the struggle.

Perspective 2

The message of abolition requires “honest” language and new definitions. Language is related to power. We do not permit those in power to control our vocabulary. Using “system language” to call prisoners “inmates” or punishment “treatment”, denies prisoners the reality of their experience and makes us captives of the old system. Our own language and definitions empower us to define the prison realistically.

Perspective 3

Abolitionists believe reconciliation, not punishment, is a proper response to criminal acts. The present criminal (in)justice systems focus on someone to punish, caring little about the criminal’s need or the victims loss. The abolitionist response seeks to restore both the criminal and the victim to full humanity, to lives of integrity and dignity in the community. Abolitionists advocate the least amount of coercion and intervention in an individual’s life and the maximum amount of care and services to all people in the society.

Perspective 4

Abolitionists work with prisoners but always remain “non-members” of the established prison system. Abolitionists learn how to walk the narrow line between relating to prisoners inside the system and remaining independent and “outside” that system. We resist the compelling psychological pressures to be “accepted” by people in the prison system. We are willing to risk pressing for changes that are beneficial to and desired by prisoners. In relating to those in power, we differentiate between the personhood of system managers (which we respect) and their role in perpetuating an oppressive system.

Perspective 5

Abolitionists are “allies” of prisoners rather than traditional “helpers.” We have forged a new definition of what is truly helpful to the caged, keeping in mind both the prisoner’s perspective and the requirements of abolition. New insights into old, culture-laden views of the “helping relationship” strengthen our roles as allies of prisoners.

Perspective 6

Abolitionists realize that the empowerment of prisoners and ex-prisoners is crucial to prison system change. Most people have the potential to determine their own needs in terms of survival, resources and programs. We support self-determination of prisoners and programs which place more power in the hands of those directly affected by the prison experience.

Perspective 7

Abolitionists view power as available to each of us for challenging and abolishing the prison system. We believe that citizens are the source of institutional power. By giving support to “or withholding support from” specific policies and practices, patterns of power can be altered.

Perspective 8

Abolitionists believe that crime is mainly a consequence of the structure of society. We devote ourselves to a community change approach. We would drastically limit the role of the criminal (in)justice systems. We advocate public solutions to public problems “greater resources and services for all people”.

Perspective 9

Abolitionists believe that it is only in a caring community that corporate and individual redemption can take place. We view the dominant culture as more in need of “correction” than the prisoner. The caring communities have yet to be built.

from Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists

Posted in Prisons & Prisoner Struggles

Malcolm X Speaks: The Oxford Union Debate

Feb 21

http://malcolmxfiles.blogspot.com/

“I read once, passingly, about a man named Shakespeare. I only read about him passingly, but I remember one thing he wrote that kind of moved me. He put it in the mouth of Hamlet, I think, it was, who said, “To be or not to be.” He was in doubt about something. Whether it was nobler in the mind of man to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, moderation, or to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them. And I go for that. If you take up arms, you’ll end it, but if you sit around and wait for the one who’s in power to make up his mind that he should end it, you’ll be waiting a long time. And in my opinion, the young generation of whites, blacks, browns, whatever else there is, you’re living at a time of extremism, a time of revolution, a time when there’s got to be a change. People in power have misused it and now there has to be a change and a better world has to be built and the only way it’s going to be built is with extreme methods. And I, for one, will join in with anyone, I don’t care what color you are, as long as you want to change this miserable condition that exists on this earth.”

Posted in National Oppression, Revolution

Tags: North America - The United States, Revolution

Malcolm X Speaks: I Have No Fear Whatsoever of Anybody or Anything

Feb 21

http://malcolmxfiles.blogspot.com/

Malcolm X explains why he was forced out of the Nation of Islam and that he has a rifle for protection. After he left the Nation and made the pilgrimage to Mecca, he wrote in a letter:

“Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races here in this ancient Holy Land, the home of Abraham, Muhammad and all the other Prophets of the Holy Scriptures. For the past week, I have been utterly speechless and spellbound by the graciousness I see displayed all around me by people of all colors.

“I have been blessed to visit the Holy City of Mecca, I have made my seven circuits around the Ka’ba, led by a young Mutawaf named Muhammad, I drank water from the well of the Zam Zam. I ran seven times back and forth between the hills of Mt. Al-Safa and Al Marwah. I have prayed in the ancient city of Mina, and I have prayed on Mt. Arafat.”

“There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blondes to black-skinned Africans. But we were all participating in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white.”

“America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have been considered white – but the white attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color.”

“You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. This was not too difficult for me. Despite my firm convictions, I have always been a man who tries to face facts, and to accept the reality of life as new experience and new knowledge unfolds it. I have always kept an open mind, which is necessary to the flexibility that must go hand in hand with every form of intelligent search for truth.”

“During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept on the same rug – while praying to the same God – with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. And in the words and in the deeds of the white Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among the black African Muslims of Nigeria, Sudan and Ghana.”

“We were truly all the same (brothers) – because their belief in one God had removed the white from their minds, the white from their behavior, and the white from their attitude.”

“I could see from this, that perhaps if white Americans could accept the Oneness of God, then perhaps, too, they could accept in reality the Oneness of Man – and cease to measure, and hinder, and harm others in terms of their ‘differences’ in color.”

“With racism plaguing America like an incurable cancer, the so-called ‘Christian’ white American heart should be more receptive to a proven solution to such a destructive problem. Perhaps it could be in time to save America from imminent disaster – the same destruction brought upon Germany by racism that eventually destroyed the Germans themselves.”

“Each hour here in the Holy Land enables me to have greater spiritual insights into what is happening in America between black and white. The American Negro never can be blamed for his racial animosities – he is only reacting to four hundred years of the conscious racism of the American whites. But as racism leads America up the suicide path, I do believe, from the experiences that I have had with them, that the whites of the younger generation, in the colleges and universities, will see the handwriting on the walls and many of them will turn to the spiritual path of truth – the only way left to America to ward off the disaster that racism inevitably must lead to.”

“Never have I been so highly honored. Never have I been made to feel more humble and unworthy. Who would believe the blessings that have been heaped upon an American Negro? A few nights ago, a man who would be called in America a white man, a United Nations diplomat, an ambassador, a companion of kings, gave me his hotel suite, his bed. Never would I have even thought of dreaming that I would ever be a recipient of such honors – honors that in America would be bestowed upon a King – not a Negro.”

“All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all the Worlds.

Sincerely,

Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X)

Posted in National Oppression, Revolution

Tags: Revolution

Anti-Zionist Professor Joel Kovel terminated by Bard College

Feb 20

Joel Kovel, a longtime activist intellectual in the anti-zionist and ecosocialist movement was recently terminated from Bard College, where he was a contract faculty member.

For further information: www.codz.org; Joel Kovel, “Overcoming Impunity,” The Link Jan-March 2009 (www.ameu.org).

To write the Bard administration protesting Joel’s termination:
President Leon Botstein
Executive Vice-President Dimitri Papadimitriou

STATEMENT OF JOEL KOVEL REGARDING HIS TERMINATION BY BARD COLLEGE

Introduction

In January, 1988, I was appointed to the Alger Hiss Chair of Social Studies at Bard College. As this was a Presidential appointment outside the tenure system, I have served under a series of contracts. The last of these was half-time (one semester on, one off, with half salary and full benefits year-round), effective from July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2009. On February 7 I received a letter from Michèle Dominy, Dean of the College, informing me that my contract would not be renewed this July 1 and that I would be moved to emeritus status as of that day. She wrote that this decision was made by President Botstein, Executive Vice-President Papadimitriou and herself, in consultation with members of the Faculty Senate.

This document argues that this termination of service is prejudicial and motivated neither by intellectual nor pedagogic considerations, but by political values, principally stemming from differences between myself and the Bard administration on the issue of Zionism. There is of course much more to my years at Bard than this, including another controversial subject, my work on ecosocialism (The Enemy of Nature). However, the evidence shows a pattern of conflict over Zionism only too reminiscent of innumerable instances in this country in which critics of Israel have been made to pay, often with their careers, for speaking out. In this instance the process culminated in a deeply flawed evaluation process which was used to justify my termination from the faculty.

A brief chronology

• 2002. This was the first year I spoke out nationally about Zionism. In October, my article, “Zionism’s Bad Conscience,” appeared in Tikkun. Three or four weeks later, I was called into President Leon Botstein’s office, to be told my Hiss Chair was being taken away. Botstein said that he had nothing to do with the decision, then gratuitously added that it had not been made because of what I had just published about Zionism, and hastened to tell me that his views were diametrically opposed to mine.

• 2003. In January I published a second article in Tikkun, “‘Left-Anti-Semitism’ and the Special Status of Israel,” which argued for a One-State solution to the dilemmas posed by Zionism. A few weeks later, I received a phone call at home from Dean Dominy, who suggested, on behalf of Executive Vice-President Dimitri Papadimitriou, that perhaps it was time for me to retire from Bard. I declined. The result of this was an evaluation of my work and the inception, in 2004, of the current half-time contract as “Distinguished Professor.”

• 2006. I finished a draft of Overcoming Zionism. In January, while I was on a Fellowship in South Africa, President Botstein conducted a concert on campus of the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, which he has directed since 2003. In a stunning departure from traditional concert practice, this began with the playing of the national anthems of the United States and Israel, after each of which the audience rose. Except for a handful of protestors, the event went unnoticed. I regarded it, however, as paradigmatic of the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel, one that has conduced to war in Iraq and massive human rights violations in Israel/Palestine. In December, I organized a public lecture at Bard (with Mazin Qumsiyeh) to call attention to this problem. Only one faculty person attended; the rest were students and community people; and the issue was never taken up on campus.

• 2007. Overcoming Zionism was now on the market, arguing for a One-State solution (and sharply criticizing, among others, Martin Peretz for a scurrilous op-ed piece against Rachel Corrie in the Los Angeles Times. Peretz is an official in AIPAC’s foreign policy think-tank, and at the time a Bard Trustee—though this latter fact was not pointed out in the book). In August, Overcoming Zionism was attacked by a watchdog Zionist group, StandWithUs/ Michigan, which succeeded in pressuring the book’s United States distributor, the University of Michigan Press, to remove it from circulation. An extraordinary outpouring of support (650 letters to U of M) succeeded in reversing this frank episode of book-burning. I was disturbed, however, by the fact that, with the exception of two non-tenure track faculty, there was no support from Bard in response to this egregious violation of the speech rights of a professor. When I asked President Botstein in an email why this was so, he replied that he felt I was doing quite well at taking care of myself. This was irrelevant to the obligation of a college to protect its faculty from violation of their rights of free expression—all the more so, a college such as Bard with a carefully honed reputation as a bastion of academic freedom, and which indeed defines such freedom in its Faculty Handbook as a “right . . . to search for truth and understanding without interference and to disseminate his [sic] findings without intimidation.”

• 2008. Despite some reservations by the faculty, I was able to teach a course on Zionism. In my view, and that of most of the students, it was carried off successfully. Concurrently with this, another evaluation of my work at Bard was underway. Unlike previous evaluations, in 1996 and 2003, this was unenthusiastic. It was cited by Dean Dominy as instrumental in the decision to let me go.

Irregularities in the Evaluation Process

The evaluation committee included Professor Bruce Chilton, along with Professors Mark Lambert and Kyle Gann. Professor Chilton is a member of the Social Studies division, a distinguished theologian, and the campus’ Protestant chaplain. He is also active in Zionist circles, as chair of the Episcopal–Jewish Relations Committee in the Episcopal Diocese of New York, and a member of the Executive Committee of Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East. In this capacity he campaigns vigorously against Protestant efforts to promote divestment and sanctions against the State of Israel. Professor Chilton is particularly antagonistic to the Palestinian liberation theology movement, Sabeel, and its leader, Rev. Naim Ateek, also an Episcopal. This places him on the other side of the divide from myself, who attended a Sabeel Conference in Birmingham, MI, in October, 2008, as an invited speaker, where I met Rev. Ateek, and expressed admiration for his position. It should also be observed that Professor Chilton was active this past January in supporting Israeli aggression in Gaza. He may be heard on a national radio program on WABC, “Religion on the Line,” (January 11, 2009) arguing from the Doctrine of Just War and claiming that it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for human rights violations—this despite the fact that large numbers of Jews have been in the forefront of protesting Israeli crimes in Gaza.

Of course, Professor Chilton has the right to his opinion as an academic and a citizen. Nonetheless, the presence of such a voice on the committee whose conclusion was instrumental in the decision to remove me from the Bard faculty is highly dubious. Most definitely, Professor Chilton should have recused himself from this position. His failure to do so, combined with the fact that the decision as a whole was made in context of adversity between myself and the Bard administration, renders the process of my termination invalid as an instance of what the College’s Faculty Handbook calls a procedure “designed to evaluate each faculty member fairly and in good faith.”

I still strove to make my future at Bard the subject of reasonable negotiation. However, my efforts in this direction were rudely denied by Dean Dominy’s curt and dismissive letter (at the urging, according to her, of Vice-President Papadimitriou) , which plainly asserted that there was nothing to talk over and that I was being handed a fait accompli. In view of this I considered myself left with no other option than the release of this document.

On the responsibility of intellectuals

Bard has effectively crafted for itself an image as a bastion of progressive thought. Its efforts were crowned with being anointed in 2005 by the Princeton Review as the second-most progressive college in the United States, the journal adding that Bard “puts the ‘liberal’ in ‘liberal arts.’” But “liberal” thought evidently has its limits; and my work against Zionism has encountered these.

A fundamental principle of mine is that the educator must criticize the injustices of the world, whether or not this involves him or her in conflict with the powers that be. The systematic failure of the academy to do so plays no small role in the perpetuation of injustice and state violence. In no sphere of political action does this principle apply more vigorously than with the question of Zionism; and in no country is this issue more strategically important than in the United States, given the fact that United States support is necessary for Israel’s behavior. The worse this behavior, the more strenuous must be the suppression of criticism. I take the view, then, that Israeli human rights abuses are deeply engrained in a culture of impunity granted chiefly, though not exclusively, in the United States—which culture arises from suppression of debate and open inquiry within those institutions, such as colleges, whose social role it is to enlighten the public. Therefore, if the world stands outraged at Israeli aggression in Gaza, it should also be outraged at institutions in the United States that grant Israel impunity. In my view, Bard College is one such institution. It has suppressed critical engagement with Israel and Zionism, and therefore has enabled abuses such as have occurred and are occurring in Gaza. This notion is of course, not just descriptive of a place like Bard. It is also the context within which the critic of such a place and the Zionist ideology it enables becomes marginalized, and then removed.

Posted in Youth Struggles

1 Comment

The Music of Dead Prez

Feb 16

Police State

They Schools

Propaganda

Psychology

Animal in Man

Posted in Music Videos

South African Dock Workers Refuse to Unload Israeli Shipments

Feb 16

In an act of solidarity with the people of Palestine, South African dock workers have refused to offload cargo from Israeli ships.

Workers affiliated with the South African Transport and Allied Workers’ Union have joined the worldwide campaign calling for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel.

The crimes of the Israeli government have been compared to the racist South African apartheid regime that was defeated in 1994. During the 1990s, individuals and organizations around the world boycotted South African shipments in support of the anti-apartheid movement.

The union says it applauds “the millions of workers all over the world who have openly condemned and taken decisive steps to isolate apartheid Israel, a step that should send shockwaves to its arrogant patrons in the United States who foot the bill for Israel’s killing machine.”

The Church of England recently announced that they have divested from Caterpillar, which sells bulldozers to the Israeli state used to level Palestinian homes.

Posted in Labour Struggles, War & Militarism

Tags: The African Continent, The Middle East

Venezuelians Vote “Si” in Constitutional Referendum!

Feb 16

Big Victory for the Revolution, Time to Build Socialism in Practice!

The results are in for yesterday’s constitutional referendum in Venezuela. At 9:35 pm the National Electoral Commission (CNE) announced that the referendum on a constitutional amendment seeking to lift the two-term limit for elected officials, won, by a popular vote of 54.36% to 45.63%. This is a huge victory for those forces inside of Venezuela who are fighting for revolution, and at the same time it is a major blow to the U.S. backed counter-revolutionary right-wing opposition. The amendment, which will allow Chávez to stand as a candidate in future presidential elections, was passed with 54.36% (6,003,594 votes) in favour, and with 45.64% (5,040,082) against. Furthermore, the participation level was nearly 67% of the electorate.

With a nearly one million vote difference and a 10 percent margin, the victory was even greater than most people had expected. Apart from the overwhelming victory in the 2006 presidential elections, in which Chávez won 7 million votes, this was the greatest number of votes for the revolution in the last 10 years. Even in a region where the opposition managed to win in November, Carabobo, the “YES” vote won with 52.06% against 47.94%. Also in Distrito Capital (the Caracas region), where the counter-revolutionaries managed to win an overall majority in November, the amendment was approved with 51.87% for and 48.13% against.

Elsewhere, in other Chavista strongholds, the victory, as could have been expected, was much bigger. The results in these regions were: Amazonas – 71.51% vs. 28.48%; Delta Amacuro – 71.39% vs. 28.61%; Cojedes – 68.17% vs. 31.83%; Monagas – 63.50% vs. 36.5% and so on.

What this shows the level of mobilisation of the rank-and-file people of the Bolivarian movement. The results of this can be seen if we look at the traditional strongholds of the opposition, such as in Nueva Esparta (Magarita Island), where the “NO” vote only managed to win with a minimal difference: 49.26% “YES”, 50.74% “NO”.

Furthermore, if we are to compare the overall “YES” vote to previous ones for Chávez and the PSUV, we can see a clear increase in support. In the last round of regional elections, in November 2008, the PSUV and other Bolivarian candidates got 5.5 million, compared to 6 million “YES” votes in yesterday’s referendum. However, the opposition also won more votes, reaching 5 million “NO” votes, compared to 4 million in November. This shows us the extreme polarisation in Venezuelan society. It should also be taken into account that the electorate has grown from around 13 million in 2004 to around 17 million today.

The whip of the counter-revolution

The main reason why the referendum was won this time as opposed to 2007, was the mobilisation of the masses. As we have explained in previous articles, the masses saw this referendum in clear class terms. In spite of the serious problems and deficiencies that are present in Venezuelan society, the undoubtedly great amount of social welfare that the Revolution has brought is a powerful attraction. We cannot underestimate the impact of achievements such as Barrio Adentro and CDI (free basic healthcare centres in poor neighbourhoods), misiones (free educational and other social services programmes), the Bolivarian Universities (allowing access to thousands of previously excluded students, mainly urban poor and working-class youth), etc.

For the masses these are concrete conquests, the product of ten years of revolutionary struggle. They will not see them destroyed by the right-wing without a fight. This was also shown in practice in November. Just after the victory of Radonski, a semi-fascist right-winger, in the regional elections in the state of Miranda, he began to attack the misiones and Barrio Adentro.

In an article written at that time we outlined some of the threats and attacks of the opposition:

”In fact, Chavez, in his speech detailed a long list of attacks against health clinics and educational programmes. Here are some of them:

A Barrio Adentro I health clinic was torched down in Los Taladors, Valencia, Carabobo.

In the Independencia and Cordoba councils in Tachira, students from the misiones have been told to abandon their classrooms.

In Miranda there were attacks and threats against the UNEFA university site in the governorship of the state (now under opposition control).

In Los Teques, Miranda, there were threats against Radio La Voz de Guaicaipuro.

In Miranda, an Integral Diagnostic Centre clinic was also threatened and had to be protected by the police.

In Puerto Cabello, Carabobo, supporters of the newly elected governor, Salas Feo, threatened Cuban doctors and Barrio Adentro clinics.

In Guaicaipuro council, Miranda, a group of 10 Barrio Adentro Cuban doctors were forced out of the houses they were living in.

The response of the masses was swift. In Miranda, tens of thousands took to the streets and similar demonstrations took place throughout the country. This underlines yet again a general feature in the Venezuelan revolution: every time the whip of the counter-revolution gone into action, the masses have moved to defend and deepen the revolution.

This also explains yesterday’s overwhelming victory. The masses understood that this referendum would be a crucial factor in deciding the fate of the revoution. If the counter-revolution gets its hands on the presidency, they would go on to destroy all the gains of the revolution.

The streets belong to the revolution

As shown in the final results, the balance of forces remains extremely favourable for the revolution. But the figures do not show the real correlation of forces in Venezuelan society. The mobilisation among the revolutionary rank and file was tremendous. Hundreds of battalions of volunteers were organised for the campaign.

Photo by PSUV. In all the big cities, “puntos rojos” (red squares) were organised where permanent stalls were set up to discuss with people and hand out agitational flyers. The most militant sections of the working class organised themselves into the “Front of workers for the ‘YES’ vote” which organised huge rallies and mass meetings all over the country. This mobilisation was also seen when one million people marched in favour of the “YES” vote on Thursday 12th of February.

Among the youth the situation was crystal clear as well. While small groups of counter-revolutionary students (mainly the sons and daughters of the petty bourgeoisie) tried to promote violence, 100,000 Bolivarian youth demonstrated for the “YES”. Whereas the oppositionist youth organisations are largely empty, the PSUV Youth has around 140,000 members.

On election night, the streets of Caracas were completely controlled by the revolutionaries. Hundreds of motorbikers with red flags drove around the centre. The mood was euphoric as people waited for the results. Hundreds of thousands waited anxiously around the Miraflores Palace to hear the final results, and cheered and chanted militant slogans when the victory was announced.

All of this shows the enormous potential still present in the situation. Even after 10 years of revolution, the masses are still loyal and stand firmly behind Chávez. With this magnificient force it is entirelypossible to deal a final blow to the olicharchy and complete the revolution by expropriating the banks, the lands and the industry.

Counter-revolutionary violence

Yet again, the counter-revolution displayed its completely un-democratic behaviour. In the electoral campaign they used both parliametary and extra-parliamentary tactics. There was an outburst of violent clashes between petty-bourgeois students and the police. In Cagua, in the state of Aragua, twelve students attacked the police with Molotov cocktails during a demonstration against the constitutional amendment. Similar events unfolded in Cumana (Sucre), Mérida and Maturín (Monagas). The worst case was in the state of Táchira, where fascist gangs have promoted violence on the streets for the last two weeks.

On January 17, six Colombian paramilitaries were detained in Maracay, Aragua, carrying weapons, grenades and two kilograms of explosives. On January 27, another 31 Colombians were arrested, accused of being linked to a paramilitary group. A similar case occurred in El Vigia, in the state of Mérida, when four members of the Colombian fascist paramilitary-group “The Block of Black Eagles” were captured with a huge amount of arms, explosives, grenades and maps with detailed plans for terrorist acts. All of this clearly shows the desperation of the opposition who knew that it could not win, and thus tried all sorts of tricks to block the referendum and create a mood of instability and chaos.

Polarisation

However, there are also other dangers inherent in the present situation. The referendum results showed a big majority for the revolution, but we also witnessed a mobilisation on part of the counter-revolution. In fact, the 5 million votes obtained for the “NO” vote means that the opposition vote has grown by 700,000 as compared to the November elections. Proportionally, the opposition gained some terrain. While the difference between revolution and counter-revolution in November was 58% to 41%, in this referendum it was 54%, to 45%.

This is clearly a warning which must be taken seriously. What it shows is the extreme polarisation in Venezuelan society between left and right, revolution and counter-revolution. Some people will say that the government need “moderation” and “dialogue” in order to build a bridge between these opposing sides.

But in order to win over the hesitating elements to the revolutionary line, what is needed is not “moderation”. On the contrary: what is needed is bold and decisive action! The reason why some layers of the masses did not vote or voted “N” is becauset they are tired of the slow pace of the revolution. They are growing weary of empty phrases about the wonders of Socialism, while their fundamental problems still remain unsoved.

Economic crisis

Contrary to what is being advocated by some reformist elements in Venezuela, the international crisis of Capitalism will have an effect on Venezuela. In fact, the impact is already being felt. In just half a year, the price per barrel of oil has gone from $147 to less than $40. This has completely undermined the country’s economy. Prices of other raw materials, such as aluminium and steel, which Venezuela produces en masse, have also dropped dramatically.

This cannot but undermine the conquests of the revolution. PDVSA (the national oil company), which finances various social projects, has already announced a 40% cut-back in this year’s budget. Inflation has also soared. It is currently at nearly 30%, but food prices in Caracas have risen by 50% in a single year.

This creates severe problems for thousands of working class families who cannot make ends meet. If they are not solved, it will put the the social support of the revolution in grave danger. The main problem is that the Venezuelan economy still is capitalist, and must therefore obey the basic laws of the market. To break this pattern it is necessary to introduce a Socialist plan to re-activate the country’s produtive capacity and ensure the economy runs smoothly. But to do this, a break with the economic power of the oligarchy, which still holds the main levers of the economy in its hands, is necessary.

“An idea whose time has come”

In his victory speech at the People’s Balcony in the Miraflores Palace, Chávez said that the 6 million who voted “YES” voted for Socialism. This is a thousand times correct. But now “Socialism” cannot remain a mere word; it must be built in practice. In spite of the impressive victory of the referendum, the revolution is still not irreversible. The growth of the opposition and the fact more than one million who voted Chávez in 2006 did not vote at all this time are clearly signs of danger. Taken together with the loss of several strategic regions in the November elections, the alarm bells should be ringing.

On election day, Chávez sent out a cmmuniqué. In this press release he quoted Victor Hugo: “You cannot stop an idea whose time has come”. Again, this is completely correct. But we must add one thing: this idea is the Socialist Revolution. You cannot stop the revolution once it is set in motion! The revolution cannot stop half-way! Now more than ever, the question is the following: either the revolution moves forward to destroy the economic power of the bourgoisie and imperialism or it will go under in the most terrible defeat. It is on this question that the fate of the Venezuelan Revolution will be decided.

Posted in Latin America, Revolution, Socialism

Tags: Latin America, Revolution, Socialism

Promises and Betrayals

Feb 14

This is a Western documentary about the background of the emergence of Israel, especially the dealing and scheming of British Imperialism at the time of the First World War. One should note though that I am posting this for the film itself, and I do not endorse the group that edited in the subtitles or what they say. For one, the group seems to follow a bizarre form of a 9/11 conspiracy in that while they do not believe that the towers were brought down by controlled explosions, they go so far as to say that the conspiracy theories may actually be government created red herrings. Secondly, I get the impression that they may be anti-Semitic as in part 4 the subtitles make a strange attempt to link Jews with the crimes of Stalinian socialism. Finally, again in Part 4, they show a general historical ignorance about the change in the USSR from the time of the revolution to Stalin’s recognition of Israel in the late 40s, as well as other things (I have never heard of Stalin, even at his most purge-happy, killing 100 million people). Oh well, I would suggest just ignoring them

The Image quality is not great (its from Youtube) but it is none-the-less a good introduction to the historical issues for anyone who is looking more to learn more about the conflict. This past Thursday I also helped give a showing of the film at my university with a local action group I am with known as Students For Palestinian Rights.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Posted in Imperialism & Colonialism, Radical History, War & Militarism