>Yoshie wrote:
>
> > I can imagine myself as a black student who has to hear a white
>student saying, "They
>> don't like it? Quit school, get a working-class job, etc."
>
>I wasn't talking to black students at Brown. I was talking to you and
>reacting to a specific thing YOU said. You are not all students of color,
>Yoshie -- or are you?
It is *not* I *but* the organized Brown students of color & their white comrades who took copies of the Brown _Daily Herald_. Naturally, your remark applies to *them*, not me, since I'm not even a student at Brown.
> > >What kind of workers do you hang around? I'm around workers 5 days a week
>> >and I doubt many of them would be put off by resisting scabs.
>>
>> Evidence?
>
>You want my fellow workers names? SS #'s? Would you like me to conduct a
>poll while we're dragging garbage bags to the dumpster?
I'm talking about evidence that the _majority of today's workers_ (not just your co-workers in your anecdote) approve of resisting scabs by force. Your co-workers are a tiny minority of today's American proletariat.
> > How do you undermine "mainstream assumptions" while agreeing with
>> Horowitz that what happened is a violation of his "free speech" when
>> it isn't, not even by standards of liberal democracy? The first
>> amendment doesn't protect free newspapers from being picked up
>> wholesale by activists & getting trashed.
>
>Yoshie, for the FOURTH fucking time I did not say that Horowitz's "free
>speech" was violated. I said that the Brown paper had a right to accept or
>not accept the ad, and I questioned the Brown students' tactics in reaction
>to it.
If not "free speech," upon what basis do you object to their tactic? Because the "majority" don't approve of it?
>Years ago, when I was involved in Central American activism, I knew a guy
>(still know him, in fact) who went through the NY subways and bus terminals
>and slightly, artfully altered Coors ads from "Ride the Silver Bullet" to
>"Ride the Contra Bullet." The word "Contra" was spelled out in the same
>typset, so it looked original; and it pointed to Coors' support for the
>contras. Was Coors' "free speech" violated? Not in my view. This was a true
>act of culture jamming. It altered the meaning of Coors' propaganda and made
>a political point that all could see. All the students at Brown did was to
>grab a bunch of newspapers and run off. Not the best example of "culture
>jamming" that I've seen. Perhaps you're more easily impressed.
Until you told me of the above anecdote, I didn't know that anyone had done such a thing. How many people got to see the changed Coors ads & _understand_ the intended meaning of the change, not to mention approving of it? And any empirically observable effect of the changed ads?
> > The masses are not homogenous. The Brown students of color evidently
>> didn't persuade you & in fact made you despise them, but they
>> probably found many allies among blacks. Likewise, what you have
>> been saying won't persuade many blacks & may anger many of them.
>
>I don't despise them. I questioned their tactics. And if the "masses are not
>homogenous," then how do you know that what I've been saying won't persuade
>"many blacks & may anger many of them"? (Also, weren't the students who
>pulled this stunt of a variety of hues?)
I'm making a prediction based upon what I have seen, heard, & read on this topic, reparations, affirmative action, etc. Present evidence that there is no racial gap in responses to the Brown students' action. The following, for instance, is the Black Radical Congress's statement (which you may or may not have seen already):
At 5:56 AM -0500 3/28/01, Black Radical Congress wrote:
>Delivered-To: brc-press-outgoing at lists.tao.ca
>From: Black Radical Congress <blackradicalcongress at email.com>
>Subject: Student Protests Against Horowitz Ad
>Sender: worker-brc-press at lists.tao.ca
>To: brc-press at lists.tao.ca
>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 05:56:49 -0500 (EST)
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>This is a Press Release/Statement from the Black Radical Congress
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The Black Radical Congress (BRC)
>
>For Immediate Release
>
>March 28, 2001
>
>Contact: Erica Smiley, yelimske at hotmail.com
> Sam Anderson, ebontek at earthlink.net
>
>BRC STATEMENT ON STUDENT PROTESTS AGAINST HOROWITZ AD
>
>The recent attack on Black people mounted by ultra-right
>winger David Horowitz, in full-page, anti-reparations
>advertisements which he attempted to publish on more than
>50 university campuses nationwide, has created an unsafe
>climate for Black students on those campuses. The content
>of the ads, particularly in the absence of any refuting
>arguments, constitutes a message of hate, pure and simple.
>
>In attacking the basic concept of reparations, a concept
>the Black Radical Congress strongly supports and which is
>rapidly gaining diverse support around the country, the ad
>maliciously misrepresents the activities and perspectives
>of historical Black movements.
>
>We stand by the declaration in our Freedom Agenda, that "As
>the descendants of enslaved Africans, we have the legal and
>moral right to receive just compensation for the oppression,
>systematic brutality and economic exploitation Black people
>have suffered historically, and continue to experience today."
>
>But even more outrageous than Horowitz's views -- views he
>is constitutionally entitled to express -- is his use of
>campus newspapers as the principal weapon to specifically
>target a nearly defenseless population: Black youth.
>Obviously, he knows that Black students lack access to
>the financial means required to mount a counter-attack.
>
>The Black Radical Congress applauds the valiant efforts of
>Black students and their supporters -- White, Latino, Asian
>and Native American students -- who are protesting the
>use of institutional publications by the equivalent of a
>Holocaust-denier to purvey his white supremacist ideology.
>We join these students in demanding that universities
>provide a safe and positive environment for all of
>their students, equally. The First Amendment does
>not justify racism or entitle hateful people to
>destabilize and render dangerous the learning
>environments of Black youth.
>
>
>
>-30-
>
>Black Radical Congress
>National Office
>Columbia University Station
>P.O. Box 250791
>New York, NY 10025-1509
>Phone: (212) 969-0348
>Email: blackradicalcongress at email.com
>Web: http://www.blackradicalcongress.org
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>BRC-PRESS: Black Radical Congress - Official Press Releases/Statements
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo at tao.ca?body=unsubscribe%20brc-press>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo at tao.ca?body=subscribe%20brc-press>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Help: <mailto:worker-brc-press at lists.tao.ca?subject=brc-press>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Archive1: <http://www.mail-archive.com/brc-press@lists.tao.ca>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Archive2: <http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/brc-press>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Archive3: <http://archive.tao.ca>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
><www.blackradicalcongress.org> | BRC | <blackradicalcongress at email.com>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis P. wrote:
> > By your standards, blacks should do nothing that may alienate whites
>> who after all outnumber them vastly, including talking about
>> reparations.
>
>I've said nothing of the kind. In your desperation to cobble together some
>kind of argument, Yoshie, you've resorted to putting words in my mouth. What
>kind of grades do you get?
Your objection to the Brown students' action is lacking in clearly stated reasons, then. You claim not to base your judgment upon the grounds of "free speech" & white approval. What are your grounds, then? Do you have any?
Yoshie