> Yoshie Furuhashi:
>
> > They are more likely to listen to what their wives, children, and
> > mothers say than what articles in porn magazines say.
>
> That's obviously true. (Well, maybe not the children part. People
> should always be wary about trying to change the political opinions
> of their parents. The "Whatta you know, kid?" attitude is pretty
> hard to overcome in these situations.)
What I had in mind was this: tears running down the faces of the soldiers' children move the soldiers more than the best reporting in the New York Times, The Nation, or Hustler combined.
As you know, after WW2, Washington sought to keep many troops stationed in the Philippines and other countries, to use them against anti-colonial forces there (cf. <http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/ article.php?id=3406>). GIs, already tired of war and wishing to go home as soon as possible -- some of them were also politically unwilling to fight colonial counter-insurgency wars -- staged demonstrations and even resorted to some direct actions, demanding that they be sent home. I did some research on this movement, and as it turned out, there was a "home front" complement to GI's "Send Our Ships" activities overseas. Families of GIs, also wishing to have them back home as soon as possible, organized a campaign to demand their return. One of the tactics they used is to collect baby shoes and photos and send them to the White House, visually demonstrating the plight of children left without fathers at home. Something like that would be very politically effective today, I think. A nice followup to the "Mother Sheehan" phenomenon.
> But I wasn't suggesting a "strategy" of anti-war activists writing
> for Hustler or something. I was simply making the point that we
> shouldn't refrain from using outlets like that when we get the
> chance simply because we object to some of the other content in the
> magazine. The argument of that "Hustling the Left" article was over-
> the-top and silly; it was yet another example of left self-
> ghettoization. Life is too short for that shit.
I agree with you that the "Hustling the Left" article was over-the- top and counterproductive. I simply wish to make a point that we shouldn't rush to make Hustler seem a lot better than what it is, out of reaction to a one-sided perspective that makes it out to be far worse than what it is. The way some LBO-talk contributors talked about Hustler in reaction to that article, you'd think that the reason you write for Hustler is to reach out to GIs and the reason you read Hustler is to seek intellectual satisfaction and political enlightenment. Let's get back down to earth for a change: the main reason for men and women to write for Hustler is to get paid, and the main reason for men to read it is to get off on its pix when they can't get laid.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>