>What part refutes itself? Chuck's pointing out ANSWER's propensity to
>cook numbers (personally witnessed by list member Liza Featherstone,
>who wrote it up for The Nation)? The slighting of other organizers'
>roles in making A20 possible? The deadening style of rallies, with 55
>speeches that no one wants to listen to?
>Inquiring minds are desperate to know!
>Doug
------------------------------------------------
1. In terms of numbers present at the April 20 rally, my article quoted the D.C. police with the figure of 75,000, and that of most left organizations which give the number as 100,000. I quoted the organizers of the Ellipse rally (ANSWER, 50,000) and Washington monument rally (United We March, 25,000 ) regarding their own figures for each event. Most objective estimates of the Arab-American/Muslim participation were at or above 30,000, and as the movement well knows, virtually all of them were at the ANSWER rally. Do you dispute this? In terms of the Sept. 29, CSPAN, which covered the entire six-hour event from an excellent vantage point from start to finish, projected the figure 13,000. Several key newspapers said over 10,000. Some movement groups said 25,000. My article said up to 20,000, which I believe to be accurate.
2. I thought that portions of the NATION article you cite were sectarian and naive.
3. Slighting other organizers’ roles? Do you contend, in the movement debates that took place in the weeks before April 20, that ANSWER was not the main force behind the political focus on Palestine? Are you suggesting that ANSWER wasn’t the organization working with the Palestinian, Arab-American and Muslim groups to insure a large turnout? Are you implying that ANSWER didn’t struggle mightily to achieve the unity of the two main coalitions at the march and final rally, against initial strong objections from other quarters? Those were the points where ANSWER was singled out in my article. The other groups did a fine job. There was no suggestion they didn’t. The main political result of the day, as my article made clear, was that for the first time in history the U.S. antiwar movement took the side of the Palestinian people. This was an extraordinarily important development, making possible the exceptional participation of the Arab-American and Muslim community. ANSWER played a major role in bringing this about.
4. It appears from your comments that you were not present at what you describe as the “deadening” ANSWER rally, which was huge and the overwhelming bulk of the audience evidenced exceptional enthusiasm, which carried over into the subsequent unified march and the final rally, which included a considerable number of excellent speakers who were listened to quite intently.
Jack A. Smith ------------------------------------------------ jacdon at earthlink.net wrote:
>I would like to thank list member Chuck Munson for his intemperate
>diatribe May 1 in opposition my article about the April 20 antiwar
>protest posted earlier in the day and titled Historic Antiwar
>Demonstraton. As with all complex political articles containing many
>facets, including internal movement contradictions, a writer always
>fears that he or she may have gotten some major facts wrong, or
>misinterpreted something important. Munsonís take-no-prisoners attack
>has eased this writerís mind considerably. I consider his polemic to be
>empty of substance, and delivered in a style amounting to
>self-refutation. Thus, my only reply to his fulmination is to encourage
>him to keep up the good work.