community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
A (nearly) retrospective criticism of the anti-war movement
by Tim Ianulli
Thursday, Aug. 07, 2003 at 11:33 AM
timianulli@freudian-slip.org
A personal viewpoint on the anti-war movement at its height, with possible consequences for the radical left.
With the on-going occupation of Iraq, it will perhaps not be controversial (at least on this website) to say that the war against that country is not over. Despite this, the American public has been sold on the Bush administration's declaration of victory, and the anti-war movement has fizzled out. I consider this the anti-war movement's primary failure. To be clear, I don't consider it a failure because the war wasn't prevented or stopped. That was perhaps impossible. I consider it a failure because it didn't create lasting unrest. I should also clarify that I don't intend this as a criticism of the job the organizers did or any of the participants, but rather as a criticism of the ideology of the movement and the unexpressed theory behind it.
The problem lies with the fact that we addressed the war on Bush's terms. Specifically, when it was and where it was... we didn't do enough to challenge the lines drawn around Iraq, and therefore the fundamental issues that the war in Iraq is a symptom of. Put simply, the anti-war movement lacked context. Plenty was made of why this or that justification of the war is fraudulant, or of projected death tolls, etc. Except for the presence of book vendors and some vague references to larger problems, nothing was made of the larger movement. In hindsight, I feel that the anti-capitalist agenda should have been the primary focus of the speakers, the literature, even the banners at the large events. It seems that it was counter-productive to adopt "no blood for oil" and "drop Bush, not bombs." The popular criticisms of the day, which I think can be reasonably summed up as "If you're about peace, why are you being so disruptive?" in my opinion reveals that most people, including the majority of participants, thought we were opposed simply to violence. The whole thing came off as a partisan squabble, a reaction to a Republican administration, and that's why the war was so polarizing.
As strange as this may sound, I think far too much was made of "The War," as though the problems began and ended with a declaration by George W. Bush and the dropping of bombs on Baghdad. Usually being critical of the far left for being too much theory and not enough action, I hate to say this, but in this case it seems that the theoritical aspect was sorely unaddressed.
Of course, part of the problem is that there were so many people there, and a cohesive ideology was never nailed down. For the time being, I think there desparately needs to be more debate, even amonst ourselves, so that hopefully we can become galvanized around similiar ideas and "values." This would take us a long way in having an affect on culture, and thus would be a significant step towards either revolution or reform (depending on what ideas win out).
I haven't been visiting this site much, so forgive me if any of this has already been said. Also please excuse my typos.
What was missing?
by Maegan Prentice
Saturday, Sep. 06, 2003 at 4:18 PM
eyesopening@yahoo.com
You are so right (pardon the choice of word). The almost exclusive emphasis on the war as the issue left a vacuum once hostilities had begun.
The lack of real news, real information created a hurdle that could not be stradled at that point in time. Those of us who use the internet had information that was not easily available to a large portion of the population that were watching TV. In San Diego two groups are rising up to fill the vacuum - Alternate Focus and C-MAP (Community Media Access Project).
Alternate focus has developed an ongoing series of 30 programs focusing on issues of the Middle East. These programs are now being shown on public access TV stations throughout San Diego. Their development work has brought them to the attention of Arab and Jewish organisations in 40 other locations. Eventually the programming will be shown in each of these locations.
CMAP is just getting started, being mentored in part by members of Alternate Focus. They have chosen to look at the effects of political policies on communities and cultures. Their approach is slightly different in that they gain permission to show already produced documentaries as well as creating their own. Their first "homegrown" piece is an interview with Chalmers Johnson, the author of Blowback. By the end of fall they will have regular programming throughout North County San Diego and will eventually they will also reach the entire county.
Protesting 101
by citizen
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 11:53 AM
Oh, pa-leez! Your whole message is garbled. You come across as a bunch of whiny children who don't get their way so we're going to go throw a temper tantrum in the street. And then to boot, you dress up like it's still 1967, waving signs saying "Bush is Hitler" and chanting and screaming about your own personal 50 different causes (stop the war, save mumia, divest from Israel, save the whales, etc....) is there any wonder that the people protesting weren't even sure which protest it was supposed to be. But come next time to protest, will you learn? No. You'll go right back out and do the same damn thing expecting different results. In the real world, that's called being a lunatic.
'Chosen' citizen
by -
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 12:09 PM
Boy, kosher comrade, you can't get over the "Bush is Hitler" thing, can you? You comment on it at least once a week.
What's the problem? It goes against the acceptable Semetic anti-Semitism, which clearly states that all Jews are good, but all their Arab cousins are bad.
-
by citizen
Monday, Sep. 08, 2003 at 7:49 PM
Analysis is due.
First of all, if you're going to build an empire, the first thing you would do is NOT model it after Nazi Germany. Yes, Hitler took a downtrodden country and built it to a world power in a short time. The US is hardly a downtrodden country, so to model what Hitler did to seize control would not be applicable. Besides, the whole thing fizzled and went down in flames in 15 years. Bad plan to model after or try and revise.
If you're going to build an empire, you model it after the Roman Empire, It lasted 1000 years, the writings, the arcitecture, the form of government, the way of life, the inovations, the war machine. What the Roman Empire accomplished are all things which still hold a large influence over how our's and many other countries do things today.
So, if you believe Bush is building an empire, it would be more accurate to say "Bush is Caesar".
But, even that's not applicable because if it were the Romans that went into Iraq instead of the USA, they would have killed every man, woman and child in a town or village where those hiding out to attack their troops were suspected. They knew how to break the will of those they occupied. What the US is doing is not an occupation, for we are not doing what is necessary to occupy.
It's a good thing Al Gore didn't invent the internet in the 1920's, because without Nazi Germany, the local activists would have no one to make reference to when discussing history.
The effect of...
by George K.
Tuesday, Sep. 09, 2003 at 8:36 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com
This is what happens when too many parents think that little Johnny and little Janie should be going to college, and not a good trade school where they can actually learn a good vocational skill, like how to fix my car.
These kids also seemed to learn their political agenda from ?Hollywood?.
Sad bunch of idiots.
oh yeah
by reader
Tuesday, Sep. 09, 2003 at 6:23 PM
Oh Yeah, George, I sway all my opinions to how hollywood actors think. You are a complete moron. I think most of us here (you know us "communists") don't spend our time going to see lame ass blockbuster hits or watching the oscars.
Go Arnie!
by C. B. DeMille
Wednesday, Sep. 10, 2003 at 1:44 AM
It's even funnier how the Bushmen pout and cry about "Hollyood this" and "Hollyweird that" and "un-American actors and Dixie Chicks" but believe that the vegetable Reagan's face belongs on the Sphinx and love the Terminator campaign, not to mention their collective brain, O'Reilly sucking Hollywood toes for years as an an Iside Edition "anchor".
ok, remove the ...
by George K.
Thursday, Sep. 11, 2003 at 1:04 PM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com
...referance to Hollywood. How about, then, the problem is that too many kids are not suited or adapted to higher education? High schools are so watered down now, to prompt and fuel the education "industry" that has become higher education (competitive high school students = more openings at more high $ colleges).
So, all of these "kids" who cannot think, research, or study, hit the real world with no idea how to make decisions. Before they develop critical thinking, they are spoon-fed crap by idealistic anti-capitalistic "fund raisers" (which is all these groups are) and these kids are caught in a trap which pits them against their country before they ever got the chance to develop critical thinking. How much of the protest movement is actually just a form of teen / young people rebellion against authority (parents)? I think most of it is due to this feeling that these young people have. THe dangerous people are the organizers of these groups who are only out to raise money for their goals (send back to homeland, more money for political subversion, weapons?)?
There is so much babbling about idealistic and peaceful societies, but those are just practically NOT POSSIBLE. Not with humans being humans. If you don't like it, go live on a commune, but protest groups and "workshops" aren't going to change anything. You are wasting your short life. And you won't make a difference. Trust me.
college, kids, etc.- to George
by Mary Hart
Thursday, Sep. 11, 2003 at 4:17 PM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
I was a little disturbed by George K's earlier comment that too many kids were going to college (and I can't imagine why fixing George's car should be a career goal for anyone.)
There is no reason for George, or anyone else, to be suggesting to anyone that they should not go to college. I work with students who, for the most part, really want to go to college, and have generally been told that they are not college material. They often end up being quite successful in college, largely through motivation and hard work, and despite being advised against college. So it sort of bothers me to hear someone trying to make that decision for others.
From the perspective of almost 20 years teaching college, most of that time with traditional college students, I've seen the scenario of students being in college because their parents want them to way less often than I have seen the scenario of students not going to college, or going to the cheapest available option, because of parents not being wiling to make their kids, and their educations, a priority. (Gotta have a nice car, a big house; nothing left for your kids' tuition).
I'm impressed by the work I see many of the "kids" you're talking about doing (and obviously, not everyone involved in activism/IMC is a "kid"). I see some high school and college age kids routinely doing tech stuff that their parents/teachers/bosses wouldn't know how to do, and taking on leadership roles that they probably wouldn't get to do in traditional school/work settings. I'm amazed at what some of the "kids" (and other folks) are doing.
As for "think, research, study, make decisions", I think it is true that schools could do a better job encouraging thinking and decisionmaking. That's not a problem peculiar to college, though- that's a problem of K-12 education (see the work of John Taylor Gatto for an interesting take on this). I don't think "studying" is a particularly useful skill in terms of long-term learning or the learning of decisionmaking skills.
How many protestors are rebelling against parents? It seems to me that there are some parents out there (there was a thread awhile back on whether it was safe to take your kids to protests). To the extent that there are people younger than I am out there who may be in the process of clarifying their identities and establishing independence- well, that's developmentally appropriate and that doesn't negate what they're doing, any more than the fact that all of us are shaped by past experiences and our responses to them, negate the meaning of what you & I do.
Current research in brain development suggests that the areas of the brain that are the last to mature (and this is late teens, maybe even early twenties) are those that are involved with decision-making, planning, perspective-taking. I'm not surprised by the fact that there are people who post here whose idealism is more apparent than their perspective-taking ability. But I do kind of expect those who are old enough to be complaining about "kids" to be able to envision other perspectives.
idealism
by Jan
Thursday, Sep. 11, 2003 at 8:58 PM
" There is so much babbling about idealistic and peaceful societies, but those are just practically NOT POSSIBLE. Not with humans being humans. If you don't like it, go live on a commune, but protest groups and "workshops" aren't going to change anything. You are wasting your short life. And you won't make a difference. Trust me."
Actually, I have read some books on utopias and perfect societies. Try Aldous Huxley's "Island" to name a great one.
In this book, it is the outside world that ends up destroying a beautiful society.
Of course there may never be a perfect society or heaven on earth, but that doesn't mean that we should all stop trying to change society for the better. If many scientists, scholars, revolutionary leaders had the attitude stated above, we would not have many of the advances we have today... from computers to CIVIL RIGHTS! Where would we be as a society if Martin Luther King, Jr., Albert Einstein, or Ghandi felt they couldn't change anything?
And Mary was right when she stated that not all people involved in activism are college age kids. There are many older adults who are out there trying to create a better world for good unselfish causes. And I agree with george when he said that education doesn't create good thinking skills, but college certainly does. Many classes encourage people to think critically about everything they read, listen to, or see, including the class itself.
Lastly, to reiterate what I said above, no one in activism who truly believes in their cause is doing anything for no reason. I think that the world is very messed up right now and it feels overwhelming to me with all the things that (I FEEL) need changed to make a better society. But I (and I am sure others here) would never just give up because its hard to see us changing anything. ACTIVISM IS changing things.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)