> On Oct 13, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>> On 10/13/07, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
>>> In any case and to illustrate further, I'd gladly link arms with both
>>> Dabashi and Yoshie in a demonstration around the slogan "No
>>> US Attack On Iran", and wouldn't be bothered if Dabashi
>>> sported a button saying "No to Bush, no to the clerical regime"
>>> while Yoshie carried a sign "Solidarity with the Islamic Republic
>>> of Iran".
>>
>> If we allow America to get to _that_ point, which is to say the eve of
>> a major planned invasion of Iran, _we will have already failed the
>> people of Iran_, for by then it will be _too late_ to stop it. What
>> we need to do is to educate Americans to counter _what Washington is
>> already doing_ -- economic sanctions, covert actions, "democracy
>> assistance," and media propaganda -- so we will never get to the point
>> of no return.
>
> How about that Marvin? Try to be generous, and you get a whole lot of
> underscores in return.
=================================
Ah, well. I respect Yoshie's commitment and wide-ranging knowledge and have
little doubt she'd be at that demo.
But it's been clear to me for some time that a large part of Yoshie's frustration with the Western left is because she sets impossible tasks for it: in this case, to "not allow" the US to go to war (would it had the power to do so!) by "educating Americans" (with what resources?) "to counter what Washington is already doing". If it singularly fails to accomplish this objective, Yoshie is ready to accuse this bedraggled little constituency - which is far removed from working class organizations and communities and is mostly shunned by the mass of the American population - of having "failed the people of Iran".
That's a heavy burden to place on herself and other leftists. It's reminscent of the Weather Underground and other radical groups and individuals in the 60s who also over-reached and tried to guilt others into joining them. When they failed, they assured themselves it was because they were the serious ones and those who rejected their lead were dilettantes or worse. But in the end, it was the mass of antiwar liberal and radical "dilettantes" against whom they had set themselves in opposition who had a more realistic sense of what could be accomplished and who, acting in concert, were able to affect the course of events.