[statecom] Re: PLEASE SPEAK UP! Re: [statecom-discuss] Opposing
the anti-Sudan bill (or bills) before the state legislature
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Sat Apr 7 13:56:47 EDT 2007
David,
None of what you write below seems to explain why you consider Omar
al-Bashir, president of the the Republic of Sudan since 1993, to be a
head of state, who unlike all other such executives, is worthy of
support, emulation, or even, respect by anyone who has a good
understanding of the 10 values. This is something of which we have
spoken. (Bush, Bad! -- Omar, Good!)
Your ideological commitment to state's rights seems to blind you to the
universality of oppression, thus making you merely another victim,
instead of an effective fighter against oppression, for whom hatred of
the oppressor is no substitute for freedom. The juxtaposition of the
two statements: 1. "I know I am concerned about the humanitarian
situation in Darfur." 2. "It is up to the people of Sudan to decide
which decisions of the government of Sudan are good and which are bad
and to determine how their government runs." is about as good an
instance of cynical reasoning as the local preaching of Green solutions
through urban density by people who actively promote the us of
polluting vehicles by promulgating zoning regulations that require
parking spaces fo new habitation.
It is your seeming inability to understand, especially in the case of
post-colonial states, that continuing oppression from without is
maintained by oppression from within in a complementary interaction,
that makes you as complicit as any victim. This has nothing to do with
'blaming the victim,' as some people would have it. There would be no
need for ideology, if the masters were not physically weaker than the
slaves. Herein lies the cynicism in your 'reasoning.' Neither you nor
I are free of ideological assumptions. Our (yours and mine) culture's
only possible claim to superiority is the freedom provided by
'consciousness' (the ability to distinguish between the necessary and
the contingent). To impute this level of awareness to peoples living
under any regime that exploits tribal (at least that awareness allows
for peace as well as for war, amalgamation as well as extermination,
and does not make a commitment to the ultimate victory of Good over
Evil) awareness -- every man is my enemy except my kin; the enemy of my
enemy is my friend -- to maintain control, is as cynical as to
attribute that level of awareness to the majority of 'citizens' of the
U. S. Thus is the sentence, "It is up to the people of Sudan to
decide which decisions of the government of Sudan are good and which
are bad and to determine how their government runs." is an ideological
statement as little applicable to the Sudan as to the U. S. You either
know this and are being cynical, or you do not and are a victim (read,
'dupe').
One can value the passionate resistance to oppression, the genuine
impulses for freedom, the recognition that that which others lack
injures all of us, and, at the same time see just how pathetic is the
pretension to power through helpless opposition to those who might view
matters differently by cynically promoting a traditional liberal
politics through false opposition. "'Our' government" indeed! When did
we forget how to say "that government in Washington!"
Peace,
Elie
On Saturday, April 7, 2007, at 12:06 PM, David Rolde wrote:
> The party has been working on this issue for almost three years.
> Merelice is the only person on statecom or adcom who has expressed
> opposition to our position. The 2004 statement was adopted over her
> single NO vote. She did improve the statement at the same time as
> voting NO by suggesting the title of the statement and by suggesting
> the addition of the Martin Luther King quote.
>
> I know I am concerned about the humanitarian situation in Darfur. That
> is why I work on the issue and am trying to stop further war against
> Sudan so that the humanitarian situation can improve. A lot of the
> work of the anti-Sudan people that we see in this state is purely
> political propaganda and is not sending humanitarian aid to Sudan.
> There is some humanitarian aid. Our 2004 statement supports that. It
> is not clear to me what the precise work of each aid agency is and if
> the money is being used correctly. But I still try to support these
> efforts. The aid groups that I support are apolitical so I don't want
> to talk about them here. People can write to me offline if they want
> my recommendation for which aid group to donate to.
>
> We cannot offer an immediate solution to the problems faced by
> refugees in Darfur because we don't have the power to solve their
> problems immediately. We can however oppose things that other people
> suggest that would actually be counterproductive such as a military
> invasion, increased economic sanctions against Sudan as represented by
> divestment, and turning the world against Sudan and polarizing the
> situation with mischaracterizations of the situation in Darfur and
> false accusations of "genocide".
>
> If we manage to get our government to stop its military interventions
> in Sudan, remove the economic boycott and normalize relations with
> Sudan, and I guess I would add stopping pressure for neo-liberal IMF
> reforms, then we will have removed a lot of the causes for the refugee
> problem and humanitarian crisis in Darfur. I do believe that the
> people of Sudan would be able to work out their problems without the
> imperialist pressure that they face.
>
> The government of Sudan is able to make decisions and attempt to
> control events. But they do operate in the context of long standing US
> war against them and long standing US attempts to overthrow the
> Sudanese government to replace it with a compliant government. It is
> up to the people of Sudan to decide which decisions of the government
> of Sudan are good and which are bad and to determine how their
> government runs. It is not up to us, the people of an imperialist
> power that has a well-deserved reputation of plundering the world
> using the pretext of being the worlds' policeman, to control Sudan
> from outside. The government of Sudan has not committed "genocide "as
> the US government has accused them. The US government supports and
> arms governments (or US puppet governments) of many countries that
> deserve worse criticism than the current Sudanese government.
>
> There are many African-Americans and actual Africans living in America
> who agree with our position on Sudan. African-Americans are not a
> monolithic group who all agree on everything. Some African-Americans
> agree with GRP views. Some don't.
>
> - David
>
> On Apr 7, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Merelice wrote:
>
>> Greetings colleagues:
>>
>> [I consider this important official business as well as a matterr for
>> discussion and have added the statecom official business address.]
>>
>> David's approach to the Sudan is unacceptable for the GRP and MUST NOT
>> be presented as coming from the GRP. I have felt like a voice crying
>> in the wilderness for a few years on this subject, but I'm going to
>> repeat myself.
>>
>> Here are my concerns, which I have repeatedly stated since being on
>> AdCom when our statement was developed and which I still feel needs
>> revising:
>>
>> We offer no immediate solution to the devastating problem that exists
>> and for the refugees in dire need. We address the politics but not the
>> humanitarian issue. I continue to feel that our "principled" positions
>> tend to lack a strong sense of compassion and humanity. That is true
>> about the Darfur victims in the Sudan. Religious groups are rallying
>> as a matter of conscience and we come across as pigeonholing all
>> efforts as imperialistic.
>>
>> Furthermore, our position could also be seen as racist (in contrast to
>> the charge of racism that is made in the statements David presented).
>> It appears racist because it implies that the government of Sudan has
>> no ability to make decisions or control events and is merely a victim
>> of U.S. actions. It is racist because it ignores a huge number of
>> African-Americans who are calling for help and implies that they have
>> no insight and are being duped by propaganda, even though many of them
>> are eye-witnesses to events in the Sudan.
>>
>> The State Committee must make it very clear to AdCom that while David
>> has every right to speak on his own behalf, he should not be a
>> spokesperson for the party. His positions -- and his approach -- are
>> not the Party's positions and approach. Anyone who has followed his
>> writings about the Sudan could have been aware of that fact.
>>
>> Merelice
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/6/07, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For the record, the exact language of this statement was not
>>> actually vetted
>>> - the only part of this that is specifically an official statement
>>> of the
>>> party is out of date but is the third document David includes here -
>>> Love, grace
>>
>>> In a message dated 4/6/07 3:05:58 PM, davidrolde at comcast.net writes:
>>>
>>> > Reposted because this is important and it went out during that
>>> flurry
>>> > of old emails.
>>> >
>>> > -----------------------
>>> >
>>> > I testified at the state house last Thursday at the hearing before
>>> > the Joint Committee on Public Service. I testified in opposition to
>>> > the bills to demonize Sudan and divest from Sudan (which mostly
>>> would
>>> > mean divesting from Chinese oil companies) and to let them know
>>> that
>>> > Green-Rainbow Party opposes these bills.....
>> [etc. see earlier emails]
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>
More information about the statecom-discuss
mailing list