Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 08.14.05

[David Shove (shove001]

             P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R     08.14.05

1. Helping vets/video    8.15 6:30pm
2. Eyes wide open/plan   8.15 7pm

3. Somali justice        8.16 4pm
4. Natural step          8.16 5:30pm
5. Hakeem/Bicking dinner 8.16 6pm
6. Shirley Chisholm/film 8.16 6:30pm
7. Hormel strike/film    8.16 7:30pm

8. Solar energy          8.17 6:30pm
9. Shadows photos        8.17 7pm

10. Ralph Nader  - An open letter to Cindy Sheehan, Crawford, Texas
11. Joshua Frank - Don't believe the hype: Howard Dean and the PDA
12. Sharon Smith - The new anti-war majority
13. Stan Goff    - Homegrown resistance
14. Tim Wise     - Reflections on Indian mascots and white rage
15. ed           - Uncle Sam at I.A.

--------1 of 15--------

From: wamm <wamm [at] mtn.org>
Subject: Helping vets/video 8.15 6:30pm

Third Monday Movies FREE: "The Soldier's Heart"

Monday, August 15, 6:30 p.m. St Joan of Arc Church, Upper Room Parish
House, 4537 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis. Parking is close, free, and
easy.

Thousands of U.S. soldiers are returning from Iraq free from physical
injury but haunted by memories from the battlefield. In "The Soldier's
Heart," FRONTLINE explores the psychological cost of war and investigates
whether the military is doing enough to help the many combat veterans
coming home with emotional problems. With unprecedented access to active
duty service members at Camp Pendleton, a Marine base in San Diego, and
through interviews with mental health experts both in and out of the
military and members of a Camp Pendleton support group, FRONTLINE uncovers
one of the underreported stories from the war in Iraq. Discussion follows.
FFI: Call the WAMM office at 612-827-5364


--------2 of 15--------

From: LLGrahamPeterson [at] stkate.edu
Subject: Eyes wide plan 8.15 7pm

Volunteers needs for AFSC exhibit; attend planning meetings Aug. 15 or
Aug. 29

American Friends Service Committee's acclaimed exhibit and memorial to
lives lost in the Iraq war and occupation, Eyes Wide Open, is coming to
the Twin Cities Sept. 29-Oct. 1. Volunteers are needed for pre-event
planning (logisitcs, programs, publicity) as well as on-site assistance
during the three-day event.  The next two planning committee meetings are
August 15 and 29 at the Twin Cities Friends Meeting, 1725 Grand Av, St.
Paul, at 7pm.  Come to one of the meetings or contact Anne Benson at
annebenson [at] msn.com or 651-699-6995 (press 2) to lend your assistance.
More information about Eyes Wide Open and the Twin Cities event is at
www.afsc.org/eyes/ The exhibit will be at the College of St. Catherine St.
Paul campus.


--------3 of 15--------

From: omar jamal <shabeelj [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Somali justice 8.16 4pm

Somali Justice Advocacy Center invited the British Consul to St Paul HM
Consul General Andrew Seaton on Tuesday August 16 from 4-7pm at Hamline
LAw School Sundin Music Hall.

Somali Justice Advocacy Center after complaints about the possible
interviews of the Somali community here in twin cities in relation to U.K
bombing by the Feds. The Center invited the British Consulate here in St
Paul on Tuesday August 16, 2005 to address the issue. the Consulate will
strictly speak about the issues and events in U.K not here in the United
States. HM Consul General Andrew Seaton will the keynote speaker at this
event and everyone is welcomed.

Omar Jamal Executive Director Somali Justice Advocacy Center 1050 Selby
Avenue St Paul, MN 55102 Voicemail: 651-917-0383 Fax:  651-917-0379


--------4 of 15--------

From: Alliance for Sustainability <iasa [at] mtn.org>
Subject: Natural step 8.16 5:30pm

Please join us for Sustainability and the Natural Step Framework: A
Win-Win for Business, Our Community and the Earth. This Seminar provides
an innovative, successful, and cost-effective approach for becoming
environmentally and socially responsible based on consensus and systems
thinking. Its purpose is to present a common framework comprised of
easily-understood, scientifically-based principles that can serve as a
compass to guide society toward a just and sustainable future.  Details at
www.allianceforsustainability.net

Tuesday and Wednesday August 16 & 17 from 6:15-9:45pm
5:30pm Aug 16 Optional Dinner and Registration Aug 17 Optional Dinner
Includes informative tour of this innovative nature center.

RSVP requested and advanced registration discount: $95 if payment received
by Tuesday August 9th. Additional $10 after and $20 at the door if space
is available. Contributing members of the Alliance and other sponsors get
$20 discount.  There are a limited number of scholarships available.
Registration is available online at www.allianceforsustainability.net then
click on Donate.

Contact: Alliance for Sustainability at (612) 331-1099;
info [at] allianceforsustainability.net; www.allianceforsustainability.net

This event is offered to you by the City of Richfield's Wood Lake
Nature Center, Congregations Caring for Creation, MN Office of
Environmental Assistance, Responsible Minnesota Business, American
Institute of Architects-MN Committee of the Environment, EarthSave Twin
Cities, and the Alliance for Sustainability


--------5 of 15--------

From: Hakeem Farheen <hijabicycle [at] YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Hakeem/Bicking dinner 8.16 6pm

Hakeem/Bicking Fundraising Dinner

Tuesday August 16 at 6pm at Walker Methodist Church Mayoral candidate
Farheen Hakeem and 9th Ward City Council candidate Dave Bicking will be
holding a fundraising dinner at the Walker Methodist Church which features
an authentic Mexican dinner. This dinner will also feature the artwork of
Ricardo Levins Morales. Individuals who are interested in attending should
RSVP Crystal by calling (612) 721-6769. The suggested donation is $20.

The Walker Methodist Church is located 16th Ave. S. 31st. St. South,
Minneapolis

Check out www.hakeemformayor.org and www.davebicking.org for more info.


--------6 of 15--------

From: patty guerrero <pattypax [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: Shirley Chisholm 8.16 6:30pm

Tuesday, Aug 16, we will be watching the film that was shown on POV this
year of Shirley Chisholm, called "Unbought and Unbossed."  It is the story
of her candidacy for US President in 1972. She has always been someone i
have admired through the years, and i just want to show it.  It is very
good.

Salons are held (unless otherwise noted in advance):
Tuesdays, 6:30 to 8:30 pm.
Mad Hatter's Tea House,
943 W 7th, St Paul, MN

Free but donations encouraged for program and treats.
Call 651-227-3228 or 651-227-2511 for information.


--------7 of 15--------

From: North Star Anarchist Co. <mnacollective [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Hormel strike/film 8.16 7:30pm

NorthStar Anarchist Collective proudly presents:
AMERICAN DREAM
the award-winning Barbara Koppel documentary on the Hormel Meatpackers
strike in Austin, MN

Tuesday, August 16
MAPPS Cafe 7:30pm
Cedar & Riverside
1810 Riverside
(across from the Hard Times Cafe)
Cost: free

To help mark the 20th anniversary of the historic P-9 meatpackers strike
against the Hormel Co. in Austin, Minnesota , NorthStar Anarchist
Collective presents the award-winning Barbara Koppel documentary "American
Dream."

The strike by UFCW Local P-9 pitted a small town union and its fired up
rank & file against the combined power of the most profitable Meatpacking
corporation (Hormel Co.) , a sell-out union International (the UFCW), and
the Minnesota National Guard (called out by a "pro-labor" DFL governor).

The strike divided a town and inspired rebel workers across the country.
At a time when Northwest Airlines is demanding more and more concessions
from its workers and the AFL-CIO splits in two, it is more than worth it
to re-examine the lessons of the P-9 struggle at Hormel.

Former Chair of the Twin Cities P-9 Metro support committee and Prof. of
History at Macalaster College Peter Rachleff will lead a post film
discussion.

email: mnacollective [at] yahoo.com
web: www.arampls.com/northstar


--------8 of 15--------

From: Mark Snyder <snyde043 [at] tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Solar energy 8.17 6:30pm

I'm glad to see the interest in solar energy systems being raised by the
micro-loan idea from the Cam Gordon campaign.

Folks interested in learning more about solar in general and a neighborhood
approach to increasing solar energy use might want to check out this
upcoming event sponsored by Southeast Como Improvement Association.
-
Southeast Como Solar Pilot Project
Wednesday August 17 (6:30pm)
Van Cleve Park multi-purpose room, 15th & Como Aves SE

Topic:  What does in mean to utilize solar energy and how can Como residents
tap into this free fuel locally.

Speakers:  Innovative Power Systems, Center for Energy and Environment, and
others.

Sign me up for solar! is an initiative that we are undertaking to launch
the "Southeast Como Solar Pilot Project".  We are looking for a few good
residents who are interested in solar energy (primarily residential hot
water systems) to sign on to our list to receive updates and demonstrate
interest in solar energy.  We are working on a three pronged approach to
try to make the systems as affordable as possible.  One of the only solar
equipment installers in the state is in the Como neighborhood and we have
been actively working with them to partner on this project along with
other entities.  Solar energy is a way we can reduce our dependence on
fossil fuels locally while also benefiting air quality.

FFI:  go to http://www.secomo.org/Solarpage.htm or contact Justin
Eibenholzl at 676-1731 / ec [at] secomo.org.  We have nifty yellow "Sign me up
for Solar" signs available in our office for you to display in your window
to help publicize the project.


--------9 of 15--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: Shadows photos 8.17 7pm

August 17
7pm
Jan Goff-LaFontiane
"Out of the Shadows" is a traveling exhibition of forty black & white
photographs by Jan Goff-LaFontaine

<http://www.janlafontaine.com/about.html>, nationally exhibited and
collected photographer, and published book author. This intimate photo
essay is a celebration of the strength, courage, and beauty of women.
*Out of the Shadows* portrays the healing journeys of women who are
survivors of physical and sexual abuse, focusing on the connection we all
have to each other as human beings.


--------10 of 15--------

An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan, Crawford, Texas
May You Prevail, Where Others Have Failed
By RALPH NADER
CounterPunch
August 11, 2005

Dear Ms. Sheehan,

>From your grief over the loss of your son, Casey, in Iraq has come the
courage to spotlight nationally the cowardly character trait of a
President who refuses to meet with anyone or any group critical of his
illegal, fabricated, deceptive war and occupation of that ravaged country.
As a messianic militarist, Mr. Bush turned aside his own father's major
advisers who warned him of the terroristic, political, and diplomatic
perils to the United States from an invasion of Iraq. He refused to
listen.

Thirteen organizations in early 2003 separately wrote their President
requesting a meeting to have him hear them out as to why they opposed his
drumbeating, on-the-road-to war policies. These groups represented
millions of Americans. They included church leaders, veterans, business,
labor, retired intelligence officials, students, women and others. They
are among those Americans who are not allowed through the carefully
screened public audiences that are bused to arenas around the country to
hear his repetitive slogans for carrying on this draining, boomeranging
war. They each wrote President Bush but he never bothered even to
acknowledge their letters simply to say no to the requested meetings. Not
even the courtesy of a reply came from their White House.

Ever since then it has been the same - exclusion, denial, contempt and
arrogance for views counter to that of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and the
tight circle around them that composes the inner tin ear of this
Administration. Why, they even refuse to listen to objections by their own
government's military lawyers (JAG) over repeated violations of due
process of law. When will he realize that he is supposed to be the
President of all the people, not just those misled into supporting his
Iraq maneuvers?

Perhaps the breakthrough will begin this hot August in Crawford, Texas,
with the devastating loss of a beloved child transformed into a mission
for the soul of our country. This rogue regime, led by two draft-dodgers
and officially counseled by similar pro-war evaders during the Vietnam
War, is not "our country." Millions of Americans, including military and
public servants in his Administration, and many in the retired military,
diplomatic and intelligence services, opposed this war, still oppose it
and do not equate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with the United States of
America.

Our flag stands for "liberty and justice for all." Our flag must never be
misused or defiled as a bandanna for war crimes, as a gag against the
people's freedom of speech and conscience or as a fig leaf to hide the
shame of charlatans in high public office, who violate our Constitution,
our laws and our founding fathers' framework for accountable, responsive
government.

You will be goaded to cross the semantic line against a President who
himself has crossed the much graver constitutional line that has cost so
many lives on both sides and continues to cost and cost our country in so
many ways domestically and before the world. Neglecting America for the
Iraq war has become the widening downward path trod by the Bush
government.

Authenticity, bereft of contrivances, is what must confront this White
House Misleader. And authenticity is what you are and what drives you as
you demand to see this resistant President. He is on an intermittent month
long vacation, with spells for fundraisers and other insulated events. His
schedule provides ample time for such a meeting. You reflect the hopes and
prayers of millions of like-minded Americans.

Should he relent and opens his doors, be sure to ask why he low-balls U.S.
casualties in Iraq, deleting and disrespecting soldiers seriously hurt or
sickened in the Iraq war theater, but not in direct combat. Remind him of
those soldiers back in military hospitals who, with their families, wonder
why they are not being counted as they cope with their serious and
permanent disabilities. (60 Minutes, CBS program).

Ask him why, despite Pentagon audits and GAO investigations about
corruption, waste and non-delivery of services in Iraq by profiteering
large corporations totaling billions of dollars, this Commander of Chief
accepted campaign contributions from their executives and proceeds to let
this giant corporate robbery continue without the requisite law and
order?

Consider bringing to him a copy of President Dwight Eisenhower's famous
"Cross of Iron" speech, delivered in April 1953 before the nation's
newspaper editors in Washington, D.C. And add statements by Marine General
Anthony Zinni (ret.), a Middle East specialist who strongly criticized the
Bush-Cheney war policy before and after March 2003.

May you and your associates succeed in galvanizing the public debate in
this country over why a growing majority of Americans now think it was a
costly mistake to invade Iraq and want our soldiers back, with the U.S.
out of that country. He knows that his support for how he is handling this
war-occupation is falling close to one third of respondents in recent
polls - the lowest yet. Even with the mass-media at his disposal everyday,
he now represents a minority of public opinion, which should give him
pause before closing his oil marinated doors on majority views in this
nation.

May you prevail where others have failed to secure an audience with Mr.
Bush.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and former presidential candidate. You
can comment on this letter on his blogspot at DemocracyRising.US.


--------11 of 15--------

Don't Believe the Hype
Howard Dean and the PDA
By JOSHUA FRANK
CopunterPunch
August 10, 2005

After all they have been through, they still don't get it. The Democrats
are as inept a political opposition as George W. Bush is at running his
daddy's oil companies. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has just finished a long
30-state trip across the country, during which he met with thousands of
enthusiastic Democrats looking for some way to challenge the Republican
Party.

"There are Democrats everywhere," Dean exclaimed in Vermont on August 8 at
the finale of his barn-storming tour. Still taking the lead from George
Lakoff's assessment that the Democrats don't get the language right, Dean
announced, "We need a message. It has to be clear. The framing of the
debate determines who wins the debate. Running away from issues is how you
lose elections."

Sure, the rhetoric sounds nice. Issues do matter. But Dean's vision has no
teeth. As DNC chair he has run away from women's rights by attempting to
court anti-choicers into the Dem fold. He has also called for a prolonged
occupation of Iraq.

So much for the "issues" that matter.

However, Dean hopes his populist mantra is enough to keep progressive
Democrats well situated within the confines of the Democratic
establishment. The Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) are also taking
the same line, as they hope the progressive wing of the Democratic Party
can gain some power out in Washington.

Sadly, the PDA has the blessing of several boisterous Green Party members,
including David Cobb and Ted Glick, who are obviously disinterested in
re-building their own struggling party. But the PDA, like DNC guru Howard
Dean, is not to be trusted as an avenue for progressive change.

The best way to wage a fight against the Washington Democrats is to
challenge them from outside the party. If PDA Democrats left in protest of
their marginalization, change might be possible. That is, of course, if
they don't take the same stance as Cobb and Glick who continue to act as
progressive Democrats and not Green Party leaders.

That's wishful thinking, of course. Instead the Dems continue to act as
the party of opposition but continually fail to distinguish themselves
from the Republicans on a host of critical issues. Dean's new call for a
realigning of Democratic values is all for naught, as he is only talking
about changing the failing rhetoric, not the failing policy.

Dean's promise to change the way the Democrats talk about issues is a sure
sign his party will never ever genuinely embrace the issues that matter
most to progressives. They'll only talk about the issues differently. The
Democrats will never be anti-war. They will never be pro-living wage. They
will never be in favor of real universal health-care; they'll only pretend
they are. So don't' believe the hype, for nothing could be more damaging
to building a left alternative than believing Howard Dean and the PDA are
avenues for legitimate change in the US.

Joshua Frank is the author of the brand new book, Left Out!: How Liberals
Helped Reelect George W. Bush, which has just been published by Common
Courage Press. You can order a copy at a discounted rate at
www.brickburner.org. Joshua can be reached at Joshua [at] brickburner.org.


--------12 of 15--------

Can There be Progress Without Struggle?
The New Anti-War Majority
By SHARON SMITH
CounterPunch
August 11, 2005

With opinion polls consistently showing a majority of Americans against
the Iraq occupation, some prominent liberals are stepping forward to take
credit for this welcome development. The "antiwar movement is winning by
staying silent," was the theme of a recent column by American Prospect
editor Harold Meyerson in the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Congratulations are apparently in order to those responsible for the
antiwar movement's hiatus throughout John Kerry's election campaign last
year. "[H]owever perverse this may sound," Meyerson wrote, "the absence of
an antiwar movement is proving to be a huge political problem for the Bush
administration."

Today's movement has cleverly avoided the mistakes made during Vietnam,
according to Myerson, when a massive, militant movement helped Richard
Nixon get re-elected by alienating the "silent majority." Today, he
insists, the rising tide of antiwar opinion is a direct result of
Democrats' failure to oppose the war.

"With unprecedented discipline, Democrats who had opposed the war lined up
behind the candidacy of John Kerry, whose position on the war was muddled
at best," Meyerson enthused. Better still, he added, "the question of the
occupation fell off the liberal agenda. At the Take Back America
conference, a national gathering of liberals held [in June], the issue
barely came up at all."

Other antiwar liberals are offering an equally upbeat assessment--but in
contrast to Meyerson, claim the movement's record of dedicated activism is
responsible for shifting the political winds. On July 14, United for Peace
and Justice (UFPJ), the nation's largest antiwar coalition, issued an
action alert claiming, "Years of intense antiwar organizing are beginning
to pay off in the legislative realm, with movement in both houses of
Congress to call for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq."

In reality, the antiwar movement suspended activist opposition to the Iraq
occupation during Kerry's election campaign, as this would have proven
awkward for the pro-war candidate. UFPJ's September 24 protest will mark
its first national antiwar demonstration since the war began
two-and-a-half years ago, other than the mobilization against the
Republican National Convention.

Americans' sentiment against the Iraq occupation is growing not so much
because of the antiwar movement's achievements at home, but because the
anti-occupation struggle in Iraq is succeeding in its aims.

Nor is the picture on Capitol Hill quite as rosy as depicted by UFPJ. To
be sure, some 60 members of the House of Representatives have formed an
"Out of Iraq Caucus," urging "the return of U.S. service members to their
families as soon as possible."

But on July 20, by a margin of 291-137, the House approved a resolution
stating "an early withdrawal" from Iraq would "embolden the terrorists,"
and the U.S. should leave only when its foreign policy goals have been
achieved. The House also voted 304-124 for an amendment reiterating its
support for the detention of terrorist suspects at Guantnamo Bay. Despite
the antiwar majority in public opinion, Congress remains solidly behind
the war.

Antiwar activists now face a strategic choice: either galvanize the
antiwar majority into a mass opposition movement or continue to prioritize
lobbying Congress and supporting liberal (or not so liberal) Democrats.

The antiwar movement cannot build an effective opposition to the war while
it ties its fate to a pro-war party.

Supporting Kerry last year resulted in an enormous setback for the antiwar
movement. Those responsible for that failed strategy now seek to justify
it in hindsight, using contradictory and unconvincing evidence, while
taking credit where no credit is due.

The torture at Abu Ghraib should have caused a crisis for the Bush
administration last year, but the antiwar movement did not organize around
the issue. The destruction of Falluja could have forced the massive Iraqi
death toll into mainstream discourse, as the My Lai massacre did during
Vietnam, but the movement remained silent despite the massacre of hundreds
of Iraqi civilians.

The movement's ability to affect the outcome of the war--including its
ability to pressure Congress--lies in the strength of its numbers and the
power of its protests. Without this, the notion that the antiwar movement
is "winning" is an act of self-delusion.

Sharon Smith's new book is Women and Socialism. She can be reached at:
sharon [at] internationalsocialist.org


--------13 of 15--------

Of Hoisting and Petards
Homegrown Resistance
By STAN GOFF
CounterPunch
August 10, 2005

I have learned from first hand experience that war is the destroyer of
everything that is good in the world, it turns our young into soulless
killers and we tell them that they are heroes when they master the "art"
of killing. -Kevin Benderman

I cannot tell anyone else how to live his or her life but I have
determined how I want to live mine--by not participating in war any
longer... -Monica Benderman

Quit saying that U.S. troops died for a noble cause in Iraq, unless you
say, 'well, except for Casey Sheehan.' Don't you dare spill any more blood
in Casey's name. You do not have permission to use my son's name. (To
President George W. Bush) -Cindy Sheehan

On July 29th, Sergeant Kevin Benderman was sent to prison for 15 months
for filing a conscientious objector application with the Army. This did
not come out in his court martial because the court ruled early on that
not one word was to be spoken in his defense that relied on his moral
objection to the war in Iraq and--for Benderman--all wars of aggression.

Because the court could not convict Benderman directly for conscientious
objection, a right guaranteed by federal law, they rejected his
application without showing adequate cause and forced him to refuse--in
accordance with his stated moral objection to the war--redeployment to
Iraq. They then multiply charged him with preposterous
accusations--including larceny and desertion--in an attempt to intimidate
him with the possibility of seven years in prison. At the end of the day
on July 29th, only one charge stuck--intentionally missing movement--for
which they gave him a stiff 15 months at the Fort Lewis, Washington
stockade. The missing movement charge itself had to be trumped up with a
series of shifting statements from a senior NCO about the verbal content
of a 45-minute meeting. Even the normally timid Amnesty International has
publicly acknowledged that Kevin Benderman is "a prisoner of conscience."

Monica Benderman, Kevin's life-partner, has been an active and articulate
political-partner throughout this drama--a drama that, despite the
Pentagon's efforts to spin, conceal, and minimize, has only served to
highlight the dignity of exercising real freedom from within a cell and
the utter decadence of those who never cease talking about freedom as an
abstraction while they try to bomb and imprison their way out of another
resistance.

Neither the administration nor the Pentagon wants anyone to understand
this paradox of freedom--real freedom, the existential kind, not that
bombast flowing out of Rove's beleaguered office like an overflowing
toilet.

Soldiers and soldier's families are constantly instructed on something
called courage. People can only hear that word so many times before they
begin to actually reflect on what it means; and the briefest reflection
reveals something much deeper than the pumped-up physical bravado required
to engage in gunfights with strangers.

This administration knows now that the very training and indoctrination
that prepares troops for battle can slip the leash and provide the will to
face first the truth, and then themselves, and then even prison.

That really sucks for them, for Bush and Rumsfeld, who can never
understand anything but the bravado of the rich bully. Because history
will be far kinder to Kevin and Monica Benderman than it will be to George
W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

Back when warfare was not digital, and not even mechanized, there was a
weapon used to blow holes in walls--an explosive device called a petard.
>From that era we get the chestnut about being "hoisted on his own petard."
It's when one gets blown up by his own bomb a kind of grim poetic justice.
In Iraq, as in Vietnam, the people themselves are the potentially
faithless weapons.

It was Brecht who wrote:

 General, your tank is a powerful vehicle
 It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men.
 But it has one defect:
 It needs a driver.

 General, your bomber is powerful.
 It flies faster than a storm and carries more than an elephant.
 But it has one defect:
 It needs a mechanic.

 General, man is very useful.
 He can fly and he can kill.
 But he has one defect:
 He can think.

Perhaps this is why Donald Rumsfeld is hell-bent on building robot armies;
but even still, as an Iraqi man tells a US infantry lieutenant in the
upcoming (an d highly recommended) film Occupation: Dreamland, "America is
very powerful. It can build nuclear rockets and put people on the moon.
But we are the people. America cannot make the people. Only we can make
the people."

So Rumsfeld and Cheney's ventriloquist dummy Bush are now looking at their
nasty little petard and beginning to realize that it is made with an
unstable explosive.

Benderman is the latest in a series of military resisters to face prison,
both from the ranks and from the families--because we have to point out
that a Monica Benderman is engaging in the same resistance as a Kevin
Benderman, and her sacrifice is shared with Kevin's. The families, unlike
during the GI resistance of the Vietnam era, are far more directly and
aggressively involved in this resistance.

The one time that the sacrifice is not shared between family member and
soldier is when the soldier is killed. Then only those who most loved the
soldier are left behind with that terrible irreversible absence. The Bush
administration doesn't want to talk about that either.

On the back of my old Veterans for Peace tee-shirt, there is a poem by
Vietnam Veteran George Swiers:

 If we do not
 speak of it others
 will surely rewrite
 the script. Each
 of the body bags
 all of the mass
 graves will be
 opened and their
 contents abracadabraed
 into a noble cause.

Thus are the powerful now trapped in the starched and coiffed, securitized
and scripted abracadabra of trying to make their war a noble cause, while
Benderman sits in prison a free man because there is nothing they can take
away from those who learn to walk past their fear.

The administration cannot talk about Kevin and Monica Benderman's
sacrifice without putting Benderman's freedom on display--emboldening
others to do the same--and they cannot talk with the aggrieved who have
lost their flesh and blood in Iraq--like Cindy Sheehan.

Cindy Sheehan's son Casey was killed on April 4, 2004, during the Sadr
rebellion--a rebellion provoked by the Coalition Provisional Authority's
decision to bring democracy to the slums of Baghdad by closing their most
popular newspaper, al Hawza. When demonstrators protested, American troops
opened fire, killing several unarmed people and sparking the armed
rebellion that killed Casey Sheehan.

Six days after Kevin Benderman went to prison and Monica started to look
for a place in Washington State, Cindy Sheehan, who had come to Dallas for
the Veterans for Peace Annual Convention, decided to interdict George W.
Bush's vacation at the Crawford "Ranch" two and a half hours away.

She and about 50 conventioneers, including a squad of newly joined Iraq
Veterans Against the War, loaded up an "Impeachment" bus and deposited
Cindy in a tent adjacent to the Crawford snake and gopher ranch. Cindy
said she will stay there until the police drag away a bereaved mother,
until the President answers her one question face-to-face, or until Bush
leaves Crawford:

"Why did my son die? What was the noble cause that he died for?"

Abracadabra.

Cindy Sheehan and Kevin Benderman and Monica Benderman, and the host of
other Gold Star families and military resisters--many of whom were with us
at the VFP Convention in Dallas last week, may not be able to wear the
expensive clothes, or sport the expensive coifs, or ride in the armored
and body-guarded limousines of those powerful men who are trapped in their
abracadabra scripts and their tail-spinning agendas, but when you look at
them you can see the straight line from freedom to dignity, how something
real is inside these ordinary people who have discovered courage in
extraordinary circumstances people like the Bendermans and Cindy Sheehan.
Alongside them compare the Bushes and the Rumsfelds and the Cheneys and
the Roves--buffoons made dangerous with power, the C-Team of a ruling
class in an epoch when their power is hemorrhaging through the wounds
being opened by resistance from Baghdad to La Paz, men (and a few women)
encircled by the demands of governance and fearful of even the tiniest
truths.

Abracadabra who is nobler than the nobles now?

Stan Goff is the author of "Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the US
Invasion of Haiti" (Soft Skull Press, 2000), "Full Spectrum Disorder"
(Soft Skull Press, 2003) and "Sex & War" which will be released
approximately December, 2005. He is retired from the United States Army.
His blog is at www.stangoff.com.

Goff can be reached at: sherrynstan [at] igc.org


--------14 of 15--------

Darken Up, A-Hole
Reflections on Indian Mascots and White Rage
By TIM WISE
CounterPunch
August 10, 2005

All I wanted was a lousy beer. OK, a few lousy beers. Is that too much to
ask?

Of course, I suppose it was partly my fault. After all, I had taken my
laptop with me into the bar, having just come from the library, where I'd
spent the day doing research for a new book. Computer in hand, and being a
writer and all, I naturally flipped it open to type in a few random
thoughts for a column: not this column, actually. This one emerged from
what happened next.

Computers in brewpubs are like steaming piles of shit in a field full of
flies: guaranteed to attract attention from the regulars. And so it
happened, when a guy who'd gotten a four or five pint head start on me,
asked what I was working on.

I could have lied. Maybe shoulda.' Didn't, though.

"I'm a writer, just making a few notes," I answered back.

I hoped that might be the end of it, but I sorta' knew it wouldn't be.

"You a songwriter?" he asked. Made sense, seeing as how this was a bar in
the heart of Nashville, just four or five blocks from Music Row: a street
lined with recording studios and record label offices.

Once more, I could have lied. Maybe shoulda.' But then again, tell someone
you're a songwriter in this town and you'll have to listen to their latest
song, which they'll whip out, on an already recorded demo, hoping you know
someone to whom it can be passed along.

I didn't have time for that bullshit, so I just told the truth.

"Nope, I'm a political columnist. I write mostly about racism, economics,
a few other social issues."

Now here's the thing: Up to this point, I've remained purposely vague, not
tipping off my newfound bar mate as to my political stripes, or where I
might be coming from when it comes to race.

But here's the thing too: I'm white, and so is he. And there is an
unspoken understanding among white folks, especially white men, it
seems-and especially, perhaps, in the South-and that understanding goes
roughly like this: when people of color aren't around, it's perfectly
acceptable to talk badly about them.

As such, I knew what was coming, or at least that something was, though
the form it would take was to remain a mystery-at least, that is, for the
next three or four nanoseconds; that being the time it would take for the
guy on the neighboring stool to formulate his next thought. And here I am
using the term "thought" generously.

Apparently, ESPN had just announced that the NCAA had decided to sanction
schools that continue to use demeaning, stereotype-laden mascots of
American Indians for their athletic teams.

This, as it turns out, was not sitting well with the aging frat boy here,
and he figured, I guess, that I would agree with him. It never crossed his
mind that I might support the decision; indeed, think the NCAA had let the
dozen or so schools in question off lightly. After all, they had only
barred them from hosting NCAA tournament games, or displaying their logos
at such events, in the latter instance not even until 2008, and all of
this, only in basketball.

"What's the big deal?" he huffed. "There's nothing racist about a mascot.
Talk about some oversensitive bullshit!"

Easy for him to say, I thought. Folks like us rarely have to worry about
being objectified, and turned into dehumanizing caricatures. When people
like you run the country and every institution therein, "sticks and
stones" takes on a much more truthful ring than it does for anyone else.

Knowing I had an obligation to respond, yet wanting to do so in a way that
wouldn't get me thrown out of the bar, I asked if he thought it was really
appropriate for those of us who weren't Indian to say what was and wasn't
offensive to those who were.

"What?" he replied, clearly not expecting to have been challenged in such
a way.

I repeated the question, at which point he suggested that not all Indians
found mascots offensive. He even had some Indian blood, he insisted, way
back in his family line: a claim that single-handedly proved what little
he knows of indigenous culture. After all, the notion of "Indian blood"
and blood quantum, were largely concepts created by the white ruling class
to limit the scope of land settlements with Indian nations. Indians were
not, with a few notable exceptions, biological determinists.

"Take the Seminoles," he thundered. "They actually support Florida State
calling themselves that!"

True enough, the official Seminole nation of Florida is on record as
supporting the use of their name at FSU. But of course, there are other
Seminoles in the region who feel differently, not to mention the black
Seminoles who have been all but disowned by those who consider themselves
"true" representatives of the tribe. Indian politics are complicated, as
it turns out. Much more so, in fact, than the average white guy at a bar,
who is nothing if not predictable.

"Understood," I replied. It was at that point I offered what seems, to me,
the only logical compromise on the matter: one which, if this guy really
felt as though Indians supported mascots, he'd be quick to accept.
"So," I said, "How about we just let Indian folks vote on it. But just
Indians, and just those who are either tribally enrolled or otherwise
clearly identified and active in Native communities, culture or politics?
In other words, let's stay out of it, you and me, and let those who are
directly affected make the call."

He didn't like that much, as was made evident by how quickly he changed
the subject.

"What about Notre Dame?" he shot back. "The Fighting Irish. What about
that? My ancestors were Irish," he continued (ah yes, one of those Irish
Indians), "and it doesn't bother me one bit!"

Of course, the comparison was utterly unconvincing. To begin with, to be
called a fighter is not the same as to be called, or typified visually as
a "savage." There is a qualitative difference, made all the more evident
by the history of this nation: a history in which fighting Indians were
slaughtered, and for whom their willingness to fight back at those who
sought to exterminate them, provided their murderers with what the latter
thought the ultimate justification for the perpetration of a Holocaust.
Fighting Irishmen, meanwhile, got to be viewed as perfect candidates for
the Union Army, or for your local police force.

In other words, one group of fighters had to be eliminated, the other,
assimilated. If we can't discern the yawning chasm between these two
things, well, we really should stop drinking, be it at the local brewpub,
or anywhere else.

Secondly, indigenous persons, unlike Irish Americans, continue to be
marginalized in the United States. A substantial percentage have been
geographically ghettoized and isolated on some of the nation's most
desolate land, while those off the rez have largely been stripped of the
cultures, languages and customs of their forbears by a boarding school
policy implemented against their families, which policy's stated purpose
from the 1800s through much of the twentieth century was to "Kill the
Indian and save the man."

To be Irish American is to be a member of the largest white ethnic group
in the nation, and one of the most accepted and celebrated at that. It
wasn't always that way, to be sure, but it is now. For Irish folks to be
stereotyped as fighters simply doesn't have the same impact-given the
power and position of the Irish in this society-as when stereotypes are
deployed against subordinated groups. Objectification only works its magic
upon those who continue to be vilified. For those on top, it can become a
source of amusement, laughter-a good time.

"Yeah," I responded. "But when Notre Dame chose to call themselves the
Fightin' Irish, the school was made up overwhelmingly of Irish Catholics.
In other words, it was Irish folks choosing that name for themselves. How
many Indians do you think were really in on the decision to call
themselves 'redskins,' or to be portrayed as screaming warriors on someone
else's school clothing?"

Again, silence, and again a changing of the subject.

"Yeah but what really galls me," he continued, "is that a bunch of these
schools are just trying to honor Native Americans. They're just trying to
pay respect to the spirit of the Indians. It's like nothing we can do is
ever enough for those people."

Aside from how calling indigenous folks "those people" jibes with a true
desire to honor them (let alone his claim to be one at some remove), this
particular nugget-offered by far more than just one drunk guy at a
Nashville bar-has always struck me as especially vile.

If schools wanted to honor first nations people, after all, they could do
it in any number of more meaningful ways. They could establish Native
American studies programs and fund them adequately. They could step up
their recruitment of Indian students, staff and faculty, rather than
retreating from such efforts in the face of misplaced backlash to
affirmative action. They could strip the names off of buildings on their
campuses that pay tribute to those who participated in the butchering of
Native peoples. Here in Nashville that process could begin by renaming,
without delay, any building named after Andrew Jackson, of which there are
several.

Perhaps most importantly, we could begin by telling the truth about what
was done to the indigenous of this land, rather than trying to paper over
that truth, minimize the horror, and, once again, change the subject. You
know the kind of people I'm speaking of: the ones who refuse to label the
elimination of over ninety-five percent of the native peoples of the
Americas "genocide."

Folks like conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, who, in a debate with me at
Western Washington University in May, insisted that terming the process
genocide was absurd. It was, to him, merely an emotional appeal on my
part, devoid of content; calculated to gain applause at the expense of
honesty. To Dinesh, genocide was an inappropriate term because most of the
Indians who perished died from diseases, not warfare waged by whites.

That Dinesh has never read the definition of genocide, readily available
in the United Nation's 1948 Genocide Convention, certainly was no
surprise. But had he done so, he would have seen that in order to qualify
as genocide, one does not have to directly kill anyone per se. Rather,
genocide describes any of the following acts, committed with the intent to
destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious
group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm
to members of the group; deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to
bring about the group's destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring the
children of the group to another.

In fact, each of these categories has been met in the case of American
Indians. And had it not been for conquest, those diseases to which Indians
had no resistance-and which colonists praised as the "work of God,"
clearing the land for them-wouldn't have ravaged the native populations as
they did. To imply that such deaths were merely accidental or incidental
would be like saying the Nazis bore no responsibility for the 1.6 million
or so Jews who died of disease and starvation in the camps, rather than
having been gassed or shot. But try saying that at your local neighborhood
synagogue and see how far you get-with good reason.

Once again I suggested that if Indians thought mascots were a form of
flattery and tribute, then surely they would vote that way in an
Indian-only plebiscite. So, I repeated, why not just let them vote on it,
and keep out of their way? After all, that would be honoring them too:
trusting the wisdom of Indian peoples to prevail, one way or the other.

"But this is America," he shot back. "And I've got a right to my opinion
too! I shouldn't be disallowed from having my say on it, just because I'm
white. That's reverse discrimination."

Ah yes, reverse discrimination. Not being able to turn other people into a
cartoon for your own enjoyment is now to be seen as a form of oppression.
One wonders, indeed, how white folks can stand such a burden placed upon
our shoulders.

Just as I was about to respond, he pulled out some money to pay his bar
tab. And as he slapped down his bills upon the bar-twenties as it turns
out-and I had the occasion to glance down, my eyes fixing on the eternal
gaze of this nation's pre-eminent Indian killer, I wondered out loud, why
it is that white folks get more upset about taking offensive Indian
imagery down, than we do about the normalization of white male imagery
like that on this particular greenback. Why do we not find that image, on
one of our most common monetary denominations enraging: an image that
we're supposed to revere; a man we're supposed to praise; a "hero" we're
supposed to view as a national role model of sorts.

In other words, why do we allow ourselves, as white men, to be turned into
a caricature too-into a stereotype?

I'd like to think that most white guys are better than Andrew Jackson.

I'd like to. But on days like this, I just don't know.

Tim Wise is the author of two new books: White Like Me: Reflections on
Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press, 2005), and Affirmative
Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be
reached at: timjwise [at] msn.com


--------15 of 15--------

 My fellow addicts:
 I'm Uncle Sam, and I'm an
 imperialist.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments