[lbo-talk] "Islamofascism Awareness Week"

[ravi]

More replies...

On 23 Oct, 2007, at 14:47 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Yeah. On a related topic, Adolph Reed wrote me recently:
>
>> On the religion thing, I've never pretended -- in nearly 40 years of
>> organizing work with working class black and white people, many in
>> the South -- to be at all religious; nor have I forced myself to  
>> pander a
>> syllable in all that time, partly out of principle, partly because  
>> my disdain
>> for the enterprise is so thorough. I've not once found my approach  
>> to cause
>> me any problems connecting with people, not even most recently at  
>> the SC flea
>> markets.


That's not the question though. Most (especially on this list) who  
have criticised the smug assault on the religious have not said that  
we need to pander to them (it was rather your misperception of "faux  
populism" that led you inevitably to that interpretation). Adolph  
Reed chose to organise working class people for 40 years by talking  
to them about healthcare and issues that matter. He did not go  
crusading into their midst, a la Dawkins, whaling on about how  
childish their beliefs are, etc. That's the point! What is asked for  
is the Reed attitude: talk about the things that matter, and leave  
alone the things that do not (irrespective of your own mighty  
intellectual conclusions).


On 23 Oct, 2007, at 18:19 PM, BklynMagus wrote:
>> I believe the quotes >are to repeat the claim:
> that the government was hanging people because
> they were "the queers" -- as opposed to being
> hanged for other things.
>
> According to my friends inside and outside Iran,
> queers are being tortured and killed just for
> being queer.
>

That's possible, but a lot of the scare-mongering by bloggers like  
Doug Ireland has turned out (IIRC) to be false. And Yoshie has made  
many posts with relevant details. Hence my correction regarding how  
to read her quotation marks.


> But alas, they did and we don't.  I do not live in the
> world of what ifs, but in the world of what is happening
> to queers in the present day and am looking to stay the
> hand of those who would torture and kill queers anywhere
> the world.


It's not a world of "what-if"s ... its a question of knowing the  
limits and worth of our actions. What does the statement "Iran does X  
to group Y, which is bad" achieve? If it is hoped that making this  
statement will better the lives of Y, history and an analysis of the  
current situation tells us that in fact the opposite may be the  
consequence. If, OTOH, the sentiment is that "nothing we say on LBO  
can have any impact on anything", then why say anything at all? Is it  
to establish one's cred? But the fact that someone is a member of  
this list already establishes that cred -- it is assumed that you are  
in favour of gay rights, women's rights, etc, oppose actions are  
discriminatory towards them (hell, my pet cause is animal liberation  
-- no pun intended -- which may be the only topic that we cannot  
safely assume all subscribe to(*)).


> Join me.  I promise we won't try to recruit you.


Given my lack of a social life, as brutally summarised by Fräulein  
Bitch ;-), the recruiting sounds like a positive not a negative (I  
assume one can be a member without initiations that involve forearm  
deep proctal adventures ;-)). But I am already with you, if only as a  
keyboard warrior. I too want queers in Iran (in whatever sense we can  
apply that term) to be free and "practise their love" (in the words  
of our leader, George W). Only thing is that I believe the greatest  
threat to that is not the mullahs but George W and his gang (and  
therefore indirectly, us). The real threat to Iran (and the people of  
Iran realise that, I am sure) is not The Gay Bomb but the real bombs  
that might start dropping from the skies soon, killing all  
indiscriminately, including gay people, women with or without  
chadors, etc.

	--ravi


(*) That support for gay rights can be always assumed in leftist  
circles is not entirely accurate, I admit (though I do believe it is  
exponentially more common than concern for animal welfare(**)): there  
does seems to be a virulent homophobia among the Orthodox Left.

(**) Which does not imply that gay people are to be equated to  
animals, in *contrast* to "joyous"/vanilla/het people, but that  
animals are (to a large extent) to be equated to all people (***).

(***) I am not writing this stuff to initiate another animal rights/ 
welfare/liberation thread!