Re: [MF:Apes] Nader's Big Chance (via /contact form) (fwd)

My response to another complaint of my writing "often racist, when not
merely racially insenstive, Greens."

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:25:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: apes-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
Subject: Re: [MF:Apes] Nader's Big Chance (via /contact form)

Dear Mr. Skaugerud,

I value highly your having taking the time to read and respond to my
aritcle, and the praise you bestow. Rest assured that I do take your worry
serious, and did not make the claim lightly.

Indeed, we had a debate about this already (though on purely tacitcal
ground) on our bonobos list. The discussion starts:

	http://monkeyfist.com/pipermail/bonobos/Week-of-Mon-20001211/000030.html

In the followup note, I write:

"I sincerely believe that many Greens are not racially sensitive. Of those
who are not *merely* racially insensitive, many are more or less overtly
racist. The mere fact that many Greens are willing to uncritically ally
themselves with Pat Buchanan seems good prima facia evidence of that.

(I.e., I think that you cannot go with Pat *without* being very public
about his racism. It may preclude working with him at all.)

But I do have other evidence. Kendall Clark was heavily involved with the
Tx Greens and had a terrible time with the brute racism present there (not
to mention sexism and homophobia). Of course, it's improper to generalize
from there, but there is a notable lack of focus on racial issues among
the Greens. Note that I do try to dicuss Nader's early avoidence as a
matter of tacital foolishness rather than deep racism or racial
insensitivity."

This stands as a sketch of my grounds for worrying about the Greens and
racism. I'll concede that I lack conclusive evidence, but I think the
burden of proof lies with the Greens at the moment --  *especially* given
the official anti-racism commitments.

Let me add that I *know* there are Greens who are *very* committed to
anti-racism --  enormously so. Erhm...Kendall Clark, for example :) But
notice that I didn't quite claim that all Greens were racist. I merely
said that they are *often* racist *when not merely* racially
insenstive. More preciesely, I said that if Nader wanted to be a bridge
between *those* kind of Greens and blacks, he'd do well to go to Florida
in force. Furthermore, I'm clearly talking about the *people* in the
Greens, not (necessarily) the party or the platform. (Though, I do think
that the Greens are a *White* insitution, which is no surprise given their
European connections.)

Now, clearly this is something of quibble. Few who are looking to attack
the Greens are going to look at the subtlties of my wording. But, by the
same line, *professions* to the contrary aren't convincing, nor are they
sufficient. Where *are* the Greens (putting aside Nader) in Florida? Why
did they not step up to help mediate or to help protect black voting
rights? The *absence* of these actions are troubling.

I have some more specific responses to some of your comments below:

> Thank you for your excellent piece, "Nader's Big Chance." However, I
> was dismayed that you felt obliged to include the oft-repeated but
> untrue race-baiting line

If it were true would it still be race-baiting? It seems that there are
*two* possible objections, that it is untrue and that it is
'race-baiting'. It certainly seems *possible* for some claim to be true
*and* race-baiting, I suppose, but it's unclear what sort of *wrong*
"race-baiting" is. If "race-baiting" reveals racism, or reduces racism, it
may be a good thing!

I'm not claiming that my little line has done either, but I wish to know
more about the details of your worry. I find it a bit *troubling* that
accusations of racism are dismissed as race baiting. But be that as it
may.

> that we Greens are "often racist when not
> 'merely' racially insensitive." There is no factual evidence to
> support this,

But there is. I've observed it. At least in the Dallas Greens, I've
excellent evidence that the racism and racial insensitivity is deep and
wide-spread. Indeed, a member posted to the mailing list a completely
gratuitious note containing deeply offensive sexist and racist
language. Not only was it dismissed as harmless, a joke, a defense of
free speech, etc., but the perpetuator was given key leadership roles in
the party. The general Texas Green party leadership turned a blind eye to
the incident.

Suggestions that the party work on building membership in Black communitys
and connections with Black organization were scoffingly
dismissed. Given that I see no evidence of any *other* state party doing
substantively better at appealing to or working with Blacks, I think the
charge of racial insensitivity can be upheld.

Finally, Kendall Clark was on the platform committee. He tells me that,
for example, the vote for the reparations plank was very close, and
several members were against it in a rather distressing way.

On the other hand, Kendall tells me *right now* as I write (on irc):

	<kendall> on the other hand, DC Green Party is prolly 80% Black
	and happy to be green

	<kendall> (the leftist DC Statehood Party merged with a few white 
	greens in DC-> DC Green Party)

I regard that as an excellent sign. Perhaps the Greens as a whole are more
like how I see Nader -- antiracist but somewhat inept at it, but getting
better.

Time will tell. I dearly hope that time will prove me wrong!

> but the more often things like this are repeated, the
> more people will believe that they are true. Anyone who has bothered
> to read the ASGP platform (and most media pundits who make such
> specious charges against us obviously have not) knows that this
> unifying document is quite specific regarding our abhorrence of
> racism:

The platform is quite good, but platforms don't always accurately reflect
the party rank and file, or even the party as a whole. The radical right
wing of the Republicans managed to make several party platforms that were
far to the right of *many* Republicans on many issues (e.g.,
abortion). It's very hard to figure out the true stance of an institution
just from a platform or other "mission statement". On the other hand, such
a document can be very helpful in shaping that institution. In other
words, I don't take the platform to be more than *prima facie* evidence of
widespread, sincere Green anti-racism. I *love* the platform, but as
evidence it's not as good as you seem to think.

[snip]

> As the above platform planks demonstrate, racism is absolutely
> contrary to the basic principles of the Green movement.

Principles, expressed principles, and actions can come apart. Before I'm
convinced that there *isn't* a large racism problem in the Greens, I need
to see whether those principles are being followed. It's not clear that
they are. Kendall appealed to them frequently in his dealings with the
Dallas Greens to little effect.

> A racist would
> be just as likely to join the Greens as the NAACP--it's not
> inconceivable, but the (nonviolent) harassment and ostracism one would
> have to endure from the membership at large would be so intense as to
> send such a person running in search of more hospitable company.

I'm afraid that my observations have been the reverse. That strongly
anti-racist folks find the Greens unhospitable in just the way you
describe, and indeed, jump ship for better climes.
  
> Among our Ten Key Values, Social Justice / Equal Opportunity, Respect
> for Diversity, and any sort of realistic Future Focus would be
> rendered moot in an atmosphere of racism.

Yes. That's why it should be just about the highest concern. Yet, it
doesn't seem to be. Of all the major, wildly publicized incidents and
issues of clear deep concern to the Black community, I've not found a
*bit* of involvment by the Greens. 

That's worrisome.

>  Grassroots Democracy,
> Community-based Economics, Personal and Global Responsibility, and
> Feminism would be impossible to promote or to achieve in such a
> climate.

Did I mention the folks who want to change "Feminism" to "Gender Equity"?

> I would submit that the widespread perception of us as being somehow
> "racially insensitive," was invented and propagated by the "New
> Democrat" Gore operatives during the election season purely as a
> political weapon. They projected on our party the (I'd say "mis-")
> perceived deficiency of our presedential candidate, Ralph Nader. (No
> one called Winona LaDuke a racist or a sexist as far as I know--and

Well, if Gloria Stienem had been consistent, she would have :)

> she often speaks about the past and present white patriarchy.) In a
> soundbite world, Nader's "paragraph thinking"  may have put us at a
> disadvantage. In retrospect, I feel that his emphasis on addressing
> the systemic root causes and concrete effects of racism rather than

The problem was that he didn't always. The main charge is that by
*conflating* issues of class and race, specific key aspects of race get
mislaid. An analysis which is silent on racism (and sexism, for that
matter; homophobia is trickier but you get the idea ;)) is not just going
to be *at best* racially insenstive, it's going to be incorrect.

> pandering to individual (often Democrat-controlled) identity-politics
> groups was a mistake,

Sorry, this makes me gag. *This* is the anti-racism of the Greens of which
you are so proud? Those groups you disparage *are* the institutions which
would form the basis of a Green/Black coalition. And those are the groups
which *belong* to the Black community, you can't just expect folks to up
and abandon those institutions! NAACP? Black churchs? By *all means* let
us "pander" to them -- it's both morally right *and* stategically wise
(what, don't the Greens *want* the black vote?).

> because most Americans have been conditioned to
> confuse knee-jerk "Amen!" posturing with the real thing-- a pointed
> and long-term strategy for actually ridding our country of this
> poisonous scourge. 

How about aid and comfort in the short term? "Don't worry Black people,
though we won't lift a *finger* right now to help you with your pressing
problems, we have a *long term* strategy for you! Support us!" That
doesn't sound like a good anti-racist strategy to me. It doesn't even
sound anti-racist.

>As you state in your article, he tried, though
> perhaps too late in the campaign, to work on this aspect of his
> presentation. Still, he fights on-- and so will we.

I hope so, but my goodness! Please consider revamping some attiudes! Of
course the Greens don't have to be a party *of* Black people to stand
*with* Black people but the Greens, afaict, have been coming up damn short
on *both* fronts. Heal thyself *first*.

> Of course, we have a way to go to earn the respect and support of
> people in communities of color, but we will to continue to reach out
> and support their efforts against oppression, disenfranchisement and
> discrimination.

Name five concrete things that the Greens as an organization have done to
support Black efforts against oppression, disenfranchisement, and
discrimination. Seriouly, I would *love* to know and will happily
publicize such.

> The fact that (at this time) most of our members are
> white does make us easy prey for those who would misrepresent and
> malign us,

Does it also not make you easy prey for *being* racially insensitive? If
you don't see that as a *risk*, why not? Do the Greens hold racial
sensitivity training? Why not? Do you just expect whites to be
anti-racist?

> but as in all things, "the proof is in the pudding."

Yes, indeed. My point exactly. The pudding is looking rather more tapioca
than plum.

(Or, as Kendall suggested, more like rice pudding with raisens :))

>  We
> intend

*When*? That you *intend* suggests that you *aren't*. What's the hold up?

> to stand at the forefront of a broader movement, fighting for
> social justice, political reform and environmental sustainability.  

But without dealing with "Democrat-controlled identity poltics groups"?

> We can only hope that conscientious columnists and civic leaders from
> other parties will refrain from perpetuating inaccurate stereotypes
> about us Greens,

Proof/pudding. When you start getting tarred as an identity politics group
or pro-Black wackos then you can start relaxing.

> and will instead work with us to establish a truly
> broad-based, powerful coalition to fight for our mutual goals and a
> better America for us all.
> 
> I would encourage you to read the ASGP platform for yourself.

I have.

>  It was
> ratified at the ASGP national convention before the Nader
> nomination--unlike the Democratic Platform--and it reflects the views
> of the majority of Green Party members.

The empirical evidence for this is rather scanty. I'd love to see some
hard data (or poll evidence) otherwise.

>  It was written by Greens, not
> late-coming "Naderites,"  and part of the job of the Nader candidacy
> was to advance this platform.  We have yet to see if it succeeded.
> 
> Again, thanks for your valuable article, and for taking the time to
> read this. 

Likewise. Let me say that I make all my remarks above, even the testy
ones, in solidarity. I would *love* for the Greens to play the role you
suggest (or one similar, forefront isn't so important to me). But there
are hard and tricky questions that must be taken seriously.

Note that we at Monkeyfist (ok, Kendall and I :)) have been planning an
larger article on racism and the Greens (a general investigative). We'd be
delighted to have your input.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.