Re: Nader's Big Chance

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Dave Rolsky wrote:

> One more point I didn't think of for my previous message.
> 
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> > Slide. I'm not using my righteousnes. At least, we're presuming that. The
> > problem is that some section of my audience will *claim* that that's what
> > I've done (or seem to have done). Some, like you, will then argue that I'm
> > tactially misguided. Others (unlike you) will claim that I've wronged
> > them.
> 
> I'm not sure that it matters at all how you _thought_ you were acting.

I didn't say it matter how I *thought* I was acting. I'm saying it matter
*how I was acting*. I've, by our agreement, said nothing false, nor
astonishing. I've not said it in a misleading way.

> What's far more important is what your audience thinks.

Which audience? As I've pointed out, they aren't uniform.

>  After all, isn't
> the point of activism to change other people's minds?

No, it's to produce social justice. I don't necessarily *care* if people
change thier *minds* as long as they change thier *actions*. Getting
people to really change their minds is only one way, and is one that
doesn't typically work in the mid-range.

>  If that's true,
> then it is absolutely crucial that you express yourself in a way that
> makes yourself easy to listen to for as many people as possible.

Clearly not. The way to make my self easy to listen to for as many people
as possible is to embrace (the appearance of) *at least*
anti-anti-racism. That way, all the people made uncomfortable by
anti-racism (the vast majority, and a vaster majority of whites) can relax
and enjoy my scintillating prose.

*That's* not useful.

Face it, it's not *easy to hear* that one has done wrong. The way you make
it easy to hear is by, well, saying that the wrong isn't so bad.

In any case, you don't advocate this *really*, since you said I could
leave my little racism claim *in* if I *immediately* backed it up. Now
*really*, the only thing I've found that makes people *more* uncomfortable
that being *told* they're wrong is their being *shown* their wrong.

That's a prima facie argument for my including the proof,
obviously. However, the point of this article wasn't to *establish* Green
racism, but to recommend a course of action which has to take Green racism
in to account.

> If you know people will claim you are being overly righteous, then doesn't
> it make sense to try to avoid this.

Wow, and you think you've tactical ability? Claiming that someone is
overly righteous is a *tactic* to suppress dissent. The proper response is
to *confront and refute* those claims, not avoid them.

>  After all, its only a distraction the
> important points.  Its your responsibility as an activist to do the best
> job you can in focusing people on the issue, not your style or your
> intentions or your attitude.

If *only* you'd take this to heart.

> I guess the question is where does this accomodation turn from a good
> tactic into selling your soul?

No, the question is when is this remotely a good tactic? Not very
often. 

> Again, for me as an animal rights activist, I've learned a lot about the
> difference between actions that are satisfying for myself (nothing like a
> good chanting/yelling/shouting street demo) and things that are actually
> effective.

Not enough it seems. It's amazing to me that you *consistently* appeal to
your animal rights activism as some sort of touchstone for activism in
general, without a *iota* of reflection that the lessons you learned might
not be generally applicable. (This is *in addition* to your *specific*
misapplication -- my article is nothing *like* a good chanting.) And it's
*especially* arrogant in the fact of *several* people (myself, Kenall,
sbomb) with *experience* with anti-racism work telling you otherwise.

As *suggestions* and *queries*, such qualms may make sense. But *my
goodness* you're persistent about it ('obsessed', remember?). And I don't
see that your further persistence is based on *new* evidence.

Ok, that's it for me. I don't see that this conversation is even
marginally productive (at least in changing *your* mind). It's nice to
have it on record, of course, but there are better ways to spend time and
effort.

Let me know when you've actually got relevant evidence.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.