State of the Union, 2007: Part I

Since the 2006 midterm elections and the win of the majority of Democrats in Congress, President Bush is still pushing forward the fascist agenda and arrangements to secure monopoly capital and defend the rule of imperialism by announcing that the U.S. is committing more troops to Iraq.   On January 27, 2007 tens of thousands of people from across the United States converged on Washington, DC to demand an end to the war and to bring all the troops home now!  This demand came as a response to Bush’s State of the Union Address for 2007.

Below is an article from the Buffalo Forum*, on the State of the Union.

Bush State of the Union
Preparing Crime of War Against Iran

President George W. Bush gave his state of the Union address January 23 and again made clear U.S. preparations for aggressive war against Iran. Bush also raised the need to expand the military and create an additional “Civilian” Corps of mercenaries to try and rescue U.S. efforts at world domination. He received broad applause for both proposals. Taken as a whole, the speech reflected the exhausted character of the U.S. ruling class, which has no solutions for any problem.  Instead, cornered by failure on all sides, it is desperately trying to save itself by lashing out, imposing fascism and war.

In 2007, Bush again used the justification of September 11 for U.S. crimes.  He declared “The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that’s the case, America is still a nation at war.” He again emphasized the plan for more aggressive wars, saying, “to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.” And, far from striving to solve any problem, he repeated the refrain that “America must not fail in Iraq.”

Despite the broad demand by the peoples to end the war now and thus contribute to solving the problem of ending aggressive wars, Bush claims that repeating, again, the use of more aggression against Iraq is the way to go.  He also more broadly branded “the enmy” by basically saying any form of “extremism” and “violent radicals” are a threat.  And this applied simply to people’s views.  “This war is more than a clash of arms — it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance.” So those with what Bush decides is an “extreme ideology” are also enemies.  In this manner the president is not only warning those he specifically named, such as the resistance movements in Iraq (including Sunnies and Shias) and Lebanon (Hizbollah), but also anyone, inside the country and out, who stands in the way.  Indeed, he even cautioned Congress, saying, “We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies — and the wisdom to face them together.” Few could miss the echo of “you are with us or with the enemy.”  

 Bush directly targeted Iran several times.  He said the U.S. faces “escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America [as al Qaeda], and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah — a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.” Hizbollah successfully led the resistance in Lebanon to U.S.-Israeli aggression and continues to do so.  Bush added, “Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region…” He claimed, “Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads [in Iraq].”  He threatened that if the U.S. withdraws, “We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda.”

Bush repeatedly attempts to claim that the cause of the violence and terrorism in Iraq is the Iraqis themselves, when it is clear that it is U.S. occupation.  Now Bush is claiming Iranians are also responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq. No evidence of any kind has been presented.  It is simply asserted over and over by the Pentagon disinformation machine that Iran is responsible for American deaths. 

This emphasis on American deaths is an attempt to push the U.S. movement backward, away from its stand that Iraqis deahs and Iranian deaths and Lebanese deaths are not acceptable.  The movement stands as one with the peoples of the world against all the death and destruction of U.S. imperialist wars.  It also makes clear that there would be no U.S. deaths if all U.S. troops were brought home.

The Iraqis and Iranians are not the source of the problem, occupation is.  The Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese and Palestinians are all capable of governing themselves and living in peace if they are left to do so by the U.S. and its client state of Israel. Respect for sovereignty and non-interference by all the big powers, the U.S. first and foremost, is necessary. 

Bush rejects withdrawal of all U.S. troops as the solution for success and instead outlines the U.S. plan for revenge against the Iraqi resistance, focused on Baghdad.  Increased U.S. troops will be organized as gangs to go into neighborhoods to “find the terrorists and clear them out,” and then “hold” the neighborhood.  Using the U.S.-Israeli model in Palestine and that of Falluja and elsewhere, this can only mean more mass civilian killings, destruction of housing, hospitals and civilian infrastructure, terrorizing the population, especially women and children, and then making neighborhoods prisons, with checkpoints, restricted movement and dusk to dawn curfews.  This is what U.S.-style democracy looks like in Iraq. 

Part II: Plan for Expanded Military and Civilian Corps

To be continued…

*Buffalo Forum is a local publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization

FLASH 2006: State of the Union

Sunday, February 12, 2006

The State of the Union

On January 31, 2006, U.S. President Bush gave his State of the Union Address to the U.S. Congress. The speech was marked by some considerable changes than what the President had been saying since September 11, 2001 and since the U.S. aggressive invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.One of the things that has been revealed in this speech was the fact of the inner turmoil and conflict between the ruling classes themselves. Here is what he states:

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another — and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong — and together we will make it stronger…

The issue of differences and debate is important I feel. What possible difference could the adminstration and government have except differences of opinion concerning the direction in which society and nation are going? In response to this, Bush told Congress:

In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country [italics mine]. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom — or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life…The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership — so the United States of America will continue to lead.

What Bush means of course by “America will continue to lead” is more of the same that is taking place today. More war abroad, more repressive measures at home, more decimating the rule of law and principled stands. The only way to “secure” the peace, and mind you, the peace within the government and ruling bodies itself (two parties, two chambers, two elected branches) is through the policies of his adminstration itself. Everyone must line up to this. It is the only option that Bush gives to Congress.

Furthermore, the State of the Union was used to emphasize the “only option” for the world is for all to stand behind the “U.S. Military and it’s vital mission.” What is the role of the U.S. Military today and what is it’s vital mission? To secure empire. “The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world.” How fascist.

In 1935, Georgi Dimitrov at the Seventh Congress of the Communist International defined fascism as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” Dimitrov also mentioned that fascism was a ferocious but unstable power.

The lacking for recognizing the equality of nations could clearly be seen in this State of the Union speech. This administration completely can not stand for nations and for national rights. With the Occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq under their belt, the US specifically mentions that military rule will come to the “failed states” - Syria, Iran, the Democratic Peoples’ Republick of Korea (DPRK), Myanmar and Zimbabwe. “The United State will not retreat from the world we will never surrender to evil.”

Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission.

Bush was quite insistent that decisions about Iraq will not be made by politicians in Washington - that is decisions will not be made by any government that is civilian and particularly Congress itself, but that decisions will be made by the military.

Throughout the entire speech decision-making itself was attacked. Only the President and his “leadership” can make decisions - only the military can make decisions. Thinking itself was attacked - a fascist characteristic. If people thought and if bodies of people thought and discussed things and debated them they might actually come to some sort of rational decision that the present war and policies are not in our interests. The very act of disagreeing is all part of this, but even so, Bush wants none of that.

In light of this and in light of the problems that U.S. imperialism is facing, the State of the Union Speech was quite desperate, a reflection of the state of the ruling class itself.

FYI: The Origins of Racism

 [Note: This is a timely excellent supplement from the pages of Shunpiking Magazine.  Please do not sleep on this one. -Josh]

http://www.shunpiking.com/bhs/orig-racism.htm

The Origins of Racism
By Isaac Saney*, Shunpiking Magazine, Black History Supplement 2005

Racism, one of the dominant features of the world, is often treated as a permanent phenomenon in human relations. Entwined with the belief that racial antipathy and ethnocentrism are primordial is the assumption that racism is a natural, characteristically European legacy. This perspective ignores the mass of evidence that demonstrates that racism has a definite origin in a particular historical period, linked to very specific circumstances and conditions. Discovering the origins of racism may not account for its persistence. Understanding its origins casts an essential light not only on the functioning of racism but on the nature of governance.

In previous supplements we have commented on the general lack of global and universalised racial prejudice and notions of racial superiority and inferiority before the advent of the Atlantic slave trade. Before this horrendous traffic in human flesh, Europeans had positive attitudes and images of Africa and Africans. In the art of ancient Greece, Africans are often portrayed in positions of power and authority. The Greco-Roman societies did not generate or create a racist ideology to justify their extensive systems of slavery.

In Blacks in Antiquity, Frank Snowden, an African American historian, states that interactions between Blacks and whites “did not give rise among the Greeks and Romans to the colour prejudices of certain later Western societies. The Greeks and Romans developed no theories of white superiority.” Jan Pieterse in White on Black: Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture, further observes that generally in the world of antiquity “differences in skin colour did not play a significant role” and that “black carried a positive meaning”.

Furthermore, the African contribution to the treasury of world history and culture was universally acknowledged. One has only to read the works of the acclaimed Greek Herodotus – considered in the West the father of historical study – to appreciate the esteem in which the Black world and its accomplishments were held.

This ancient perspective is reflected in the Renaissance. The art of that period – Reubens and Rembrandt being prominent exemplars - treated Africans with respect and honour. Positive images of Africans predominated in Europe up until the fifteenth century. These images are starkly delineated by the emergence and production of the deluge of negative and debased images that arise in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

The question is thus posed: What lead to the destruction of this climate of mutual respect?

History gives one dominating answer: the Atlantic Slave Trade.

While slavery is an ancient institution, for most of world history it was not a condition identified or linked to skin colour. What is often forgotten is the fact that the Irish were bought and sold in English markets in the Middle Ages. Eric Williams, in his celebrated and influential work Capitalism and Slavery, documents that the Irish were the first people sold as slaves in the Caribbean.

The racialisation of slavery, the development of the biological concept of race – the division of humanity into biologically distinct categories where phenotypical characteristics (especially skin colour) are identifiers – is a construct created to justify African bondage and – later – the colonial and imperialist projects. This became an integral component of the emergent Eurocentric world-view that considered people of colour, particularly those of African descent as inferior: peoples without history, destined for servitude. Before the trans-Atlantic commerce in African humanity in the service of burgeoning European capitalist economies racism as a global historical phenomenon, universalised and uniform – inherent at all levels of society – did not exist.

Early Black-White Relations

Early Black-white relations in North America are usually conceived as defined by the racial divide and inevitable conflict. The historical record reveals quite a different relationship: one in which both blacks – those in servitude and those who had earned and won their freedom – and poor whites – the overwhelming majority of the white population – shared weal and woe, trial and tribulation. The idea of whiteness and white people, separate and apart from blackness and black people did not as yet exist. This was to come later as a direct product of the development of racist ideology, not just to justify slavery but to drive a wedge between black and white.

 Lerone Bennett in his acclaimed work Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America poignantly summed up this early relationship: “Working together in the same fields, sharing the same huts, the same situation, and the same grievances, the first black and white Americans, aristocrats excepted, developed strong bonds of sympathy and mutuality. They ran away together, played together and revolted together. They mated and married, siring a mixed population. In the process, the black and white servants – the majority of the colonial population – created a racial wonderland that seems somehow un-American in its lack of obsession about race and colour. There was to be sure prejudice then, but it was largely English class prejudice which was distributed without regard to race, creed or colour.”

Perhaps the most powerful feature of this early era is, as Bennett notes, “the equality of oppression” between white and black. Indeed, in the first years of slavery indentured white servants were often treated as badly as enslaved Africans, with blacks and whites being held in the same contempt and assigned similar tasks. White women not only worked in the fields but were also flogged by the colonial authorities. Barbara Fields, in her article “Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States”, notes that indentured servants could be bought and sold like livestock, kidnapped, stolen, put up as stakes in card games and awarded – even before their arrival in America – to victors in lawsuits.

The ruling circles and the resulting laws, at that time, did not distinguish between black and white. But why and how did this situation change? This answer is as chastening and revealing as the evidence is clear: by deliberate choice of the ruling circles. The salient feature in comprehending this fact is the observation that blacks and whites, as Bennett notes, “revolted together”. This assumes vital significance when one couples the singular economic significance of slavery to the ruling classes with the continual resistance and revolt of Africans. Herbert Aptheker, the renowned historian, documented nearly 250 instances of revolts against slavery in North America. What also stands out is the frequent aid and, in many cases, participation of poor whites in these events.

Some examples suffice to illuminate the prevailing state of affairs. In 1663, white servants and black slaves in Gloucester County, Virginia planned to stage a rebellion to win their freedom. Their plans were discovered and many were executed. In New York in 1741, poor whites and slaves were accused of conspiracy. After a trial 35 persons were executed. Bacon’s Rebellion – lead by Nathaniel Bacon – was probably the most dramatic example. Occurring in 1676, this uprising of white frontiersmen, slaves and servants forced the English government to dispatch a thousand troops across the Atlantic in order to restore order. A group of 80 Africans and 20 English servants were among the last to surrender.

It should be emphasised that while African resistance and revolt, widespread and numerous, was the crucial factor in the struggle to abolish slavery, Black people did not stand alone: either before or after the conscious creation of the colour line. This aid – overwhelmingly from the lower socio-economic strata – persisted in the face of concerted efforts by the slaveholders to eliminate anti-slavery opponents and organisations.

As Aptheker notes, joining this great struggle were white allies: “who came in the main from among the poor…No, it was the ‘plain’ man and woman, the artisan and mechanic, the factory worker, the yeoman and small farmer, the poor housewife who formed the bulk of the membership of the Abolitionist societies, despite intimidations; who contributed the largest part of the pennies and dollars with which the Abolitionist movement printed and distributed the pamphlets, petitions and papers appealing for justice and condemning oppression.”

 While the ruling elites were terrified of black revolt, they were thrown into panic by the prospect of continued and widespread joint white-black rebellion. This would threaten to overthrow the existing order. Edmund Morgan, in American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia, notes that in the wake of these uprisings, particularly Bacon’s Rebellion, the plantation owners concluded that “if freemen (i.e., whites-Ed.), with disappointed hopes, should make common cause with slaves of desperate hope, the results might be worse than anything Bacon had done”.

Thus, the Anglo-American ruling class, by deliberate policy, drew the colour line between freedom and slavery, as Theodore Allen notes in his Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race, “on race lines: any trace of African ancestry carried the presumption of slavery”. Consequently, the Virginia Assembly enacted various measures toward this end, including the slave codes that dictated discipline and punishment.

Concomitantly: “Virginia’s ruling class, having proclaimed that all white men were superior to black, went on to offer their social (but white) inferiors a number of benefits previously denied them. In 1705, a law was passed requiring masters to provide white servants whose indenture time was up with ten bushels of corn, thirty shillings, and a gun, while women were to get fifteen bushels of corn and forty shillings. Also, the newly freed servants were to get fifty acres of land.”

In short, the racialisation of slavery, the construction of racist and white supremacist ideology in North America was a direct and carefully thought-out class response to the problem of labour solidarity. By instituting a system of racial privileges for white workers it was possible to generate, define and establish the idea of the white race, which then operated as an instrument of social control.

The legacy of this slide from, in Bennett’s phrase, “racial wonderland” to a North America where racism is endemic – ideologically and institutionally – is not an accidental outcome. As a smokescreen, it hid – and continues to hide – the real dynamics and control of productive forces and finance; used not just to justify the bondage and exploitation of Africans – and other non-white peoples – but also to deflect the struggles of white workers into the cul-de-sac of national chauvinism. Moreover, racism has developed beyond a method to divide and splinter workers to encompass a pervasive set of social relations deeply rooted in the functioning and material reproduction of capitalism. By polarising society it splits the body politic.

The inheritance of today is to overcome this. When we grasp what it was that lead to the creation of these social relations, ideology and negative images and stereotypes, when we understand why they were created, how they were created and who they were created by, then, and only then, are we better able to overcome them in the present conditions.

* Isaac Saney is a member of the faculty at Dalhousie University in Canada.

RECOGNIZE THIS ADVANCE!

RECOGNIZE THIS ADVANCE! 

USMLO has begun
creating politics of empowerment
Together it has begun
for the new millenium
The new has dawned
communism will be won

Carry out the line
we won’t succumb
to the anti politics
imposed on everyone

The bourgeosie is wrecking
attacking humanity
But we stand firm
for rights and democracy

Recognize this advance
use it to move on
The new has dawned
communism will be won

People stepping forward
to take up the task
to build the party
so humanity can advance

Within this difficult period
our collective has been built
Marxism-Leninism guides the work

Recognize this advance
use it to move on
The new has dawned
communism will be won

Youth Continue to Build the Discussion For the New Year!

This is the review of the work that the youth have taken up this past year given at the New Year’s Social Event organized by the collectives of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization on December 31, 2006. 

Earlier this year some of the youth went to the Youth Organizing Project youth camp in Canada under the banner “Together To Build a Bright Future” and “No to War and Fascism.”  From the experience of the Youth Organizing Project, the youth have been applying principles learned and elaborated at the camp in organizing the collective and youth discussions.  These principles are working together as a collective, learning together and taking up social responsibility.  As a response to the pressure for the youth, peoples and collectives to capitulate in the face of U.S. imperialism and aggression, the youth are continuing to organize discussions for the youth to provide a space for their voice and concerns about the situation that the youth are constantly facing.  As U.S. imperialism grows desperate with filling their military with youth in fighting their wars of aggression, the youth have taken up the issue of military recruitment in the high schools and universities with great concern.  As you may know, military recruitment campaigns are promising and offering the youth a better future with luxorious benefits upon enlistment.  Many youth have spoken and taken a stand opposing the military in the schools. 

Another pressure on youth and students have been the role of the police in the schools.  The Buffalo Public schools revealed a plan that was presented to the community which called for more arrangements to police and monitor the youth, none of which addressed the needs of the youth and students. It was introduced that the Buffalo Public schools was to hire a chief police officer in charge of school safety.  The Youth Discussion Group mobilized to attend a town hall meeting on Buffalo Schools which was called for by Superintendent James Williams.  The meeting was held at a time in which many teachers and youth could not attend and the parents that did attend were denied any discussion on these matters.  We, the youth are opposed to this criminalization and targeting of the youth.  We are opposed to the notion that the youth are to blame and that we have a “behavior” problem.  

Part of the work the youth have taken up has been the distribution of the Buffalo Forum in the schools.  This has been a positive experience for the youth as there has been interest from the students in the Buffalo Forum to take up politics and as a result the students are organizing to form their own club at the school.  This is a positive development.

In the course of our discussions, especially regarding the US “war on terrorism” and the growing resistance to U.S. imperialism in the U.S. and abroad, it was brought out that the need to defend established norms and principles against forces that sought to wreck and neglect them.  An investigation into what these norms and principles are, such as the the right of nations to self-determination, the right to conscience, and the right to resistance, will be of great importance of informing ourselves, the youth, as well as to strengthen the organizing work  of the youth.  This is the work on the basis for the youth to rely on and develop their own thinking and we will continue to develop and strengthen the youth discussion. 

The Youth Are Not Criminals!
The Youth Oppose Imperialism and War!
The Youth Are In the Fight for New Arrangements!
The Youth Are Standing In Defence of the Rights of All! 

LISTEN: Wake Up

Next to Nine Inch Nails, Rage Against the Machine is one of my favorite bands. This song Wake Up performed live is what I love most about the band - the energy and tenacity in which the music - guitar, bass, and drums - is played - and Zack de La Rocha on the mic droppin’ political knowledge in the middle of the song when all goes quiet to build a crescendo and climax of just raw indignation at social injustice.

The lyrics to Wake Up can be found here.

The main points that Zack brings up in the course of the song are those who individually took up their social responsibility to address problems of society - such as racism, poverty, defending rights of the people, opposing war and imperialism and because of their exemplary leadership position were targeted by the ruling class in order to deny and rob the people of this leadership. The prominent individuals named throughout the song, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Leonard Peltier, Dennis Banks, etc., - definitely represent the struggle of the working class and people, be they black or indigenous, to be an intervening force in the equation of politics and the development of society. 

Although the song expresses the need for the individual to wake up in the following Whadda I got to / whadda I got to do to wake ya up / To shake ya up / to break the structure up, there is the need to also address the collective in taking up social responsibility. 

GHISUGO, on vellum

GHISUGO, on vellum

About a year ago, I was flipping through one of our National Geographic magazines and found an article about the oldest Mayan Mural found in Mexico by archaeologists. Of course, this editorial, was not without photographs of these murals. The article can be found here. They were stunning, awesome, beautiful.  

Looking at the photos of these paintings, I was drawn to its simple form and the complexity make-up of its storytelling.  The presentation of its human features, such as the nose, mouth, eyes, as well as the style of headdress and costume that represented divinity,  power, authority, wisdom, and knowledge.  I found that thickness in line art to be fascinating - like looking at the some forms of graffitti pieces.  It held me, and then I was hit by an idea: I wanted to draw something similiar.  So turning to the literary project I have been currently working on, I decided to depict some characters of my own, trying my best [perhaps in vain] to emulate and imitate the style of the Mayan artwork.  

Hence, a tiny tiny glimpse of another world, GHISUGO. 

I decided to post this piece online, after watching Apocalypto over the weekend. 

Affirming Identity whilst in a State of Abandonment: Introduction II

The following entry is the continuation of Introduction I and is part of the groundwork for another entry I am working on regarding identity and memory.  This entry, like the previous one before it, was writtened to our Colombian Adoptee Search and Support (CASAS) Group and can be found in the CASAS archives dated June 2, 2006 - a good two years after my trip to Colombia in April 2004.  This entry has been slightly updated in order to emphasize some of what I have to say, which was not possible posting to CASAS.

Fri Jun 2, 2006:

Dear listmembers of CASAS,

A month ago I was in NYC to attend the May Day immigrant rights and anti-war demonstrations. It was one of many that were held throughout the country, such as Chicago and Los Angeles. It was an extraodinary experience for me and since then I have been trying to find the best way to express my thoughts and feelings on the demonstration itself and how it impacted me as a US citizen and an adoptee of Colombian national origins.

Thus far, my life as an adoptee has been divided into two stages, the life I led before my trip to Bogota and the life I am trying to create for myself since that trip. Comparatively, these two stages are very different in character. Coming back from my April 2004 Colombia trip has not done away with all the issues that came with my being adopted, but it has tremondously calmed these issues to a degree in which I could begin to breathe. Therefore, my trip has helped me to move on to other things. However since my return from Bogota, several questions from my earlier period did remain with me, not as crushing and persistent as before, but important nonetheless and no less demanding of an answer. They were, of course, questions of identity, nationality, and most importantly, my own role with regard to country, nation and society - and where did I fit and belong?

With help from others and my trip to Colombia, I’ve gained a little ground to begin to wrestle with these very big and important questions. In the course of struggle and political organizing work some of the pieces to these questions were beginning to slide in place. Like my trip to Colombia, my experience with the May Day demonstrations has been another turning point in my life.

* * * * * * * * *

May 1, 2006 it was a Monday morning when I set off with a fellow friend to meet up with a contingent of Fillipino migrant domestic workers - all of them women.  I met many immigrants and workers of many nationalities during this demonstration, but the Fillipino women impacted me the most.

It was arranged that an interview would take place and then to join the march at Union Square. During the course of the interview, it was understood that the Fillipino domestic workforce consisted of “documented” and “undocumented” workers and some of which were participating in the demonstration. The first part of the interview focused on how in general, Fillipino workers, regardless of status, faced racism, discrimination, sexism in the course of their work. The fact that there were “undocumented” domestic workers made it much harder to struggle for human rights on their behalf because of the technicalities that were involved. The second part of the interview focused on more specific areas of the problem, the myriad of situations that the Fillipino women faced in terms of obtaining documentation and citizenship as well as trying to provide themselves and their own families through contributing to society by their labor.

There were many issues that were brought up in the course of the interview, all of which were very important to address, but one struck me the most. The separation of family was a critical issue for the Fillipinos. In fact, one of the signs they carried in the march declared very boldly “Imperialism separates families! No deportation!” Many found out that they could not reunite with their families whom were left in the Phillipines or were already here in the US as citizens. The issue of the separation of family is cropping up more and more in American current events, most notably in the aftermath of Katrina, where many families were dispersed throughout the country and have had no contact since.  There is an ongoing movement now among Katrina survivors for the right of return and the right to reunify with their lost loved ones. Separation of families has been, in my own budding realization, an increasingly common characteristic and feature of imperialism and colonialism [although the history of colonialism is awashed with such offenses] . As an adoptee, separation in and of itself has been a sensitive issue for me. My being adopted into another family wouldn’t have taken place without separation. There is of course differences that distinguish between types of separations, just as there are many types of migrations. Such areas are worthy and in dire need of exploration, in my opinion, but I digress.

Upon reflection my feelings and wonder of this experience are summed up in the question Ernesto “Che” Guevara asked himself after his experiences and encounters with the working poor and peasantry while traveling across South America with his best friend on a motorcycle: “How is it possible to feel nostalgia for a world I never knew?”

The demonstration was to start at 4 in the afternoon and as the time drew near, we volunteered to help carry some of the many banners and signs the Fillipino women made. To get to Union Square we had to walk a fair amount of distance and take the subtrains. Along the way, we met some Latino youth who heard about the demonstration but didn’t know the way, so they joined us on our very own migratory journey.

I was very much prepared to participate in the demonstration. I was very much unprepared for how much it would affect me. I’ve been to many large anti-war and anti-globalization demonstrations, but this demonstration was very different, not just in terms of size, but in terms of its celebratory spirit. As we entered Union Square, I saw countless contingents of working people and immigrants from all nations coming together in one big mass. As I looked, I could see immigrants whose nationalities were Mexican, Colombian, Irish, Fillipino, Korean, Indian, Puerto Rican, Venezuelan, Honduran, Ecuadorian, etc.  I do not know how many nationalities there were or how many were represented, but there were many and side by side. I have never seen so many people from all walks of life, who hail from different nations concentrated in one location  standing for their rights as dignified people and in unity. I was witnessing the unity of nations and people standing and moving as one. And among them, I saw entire families, grandparents, grandchildren and all. In the current of this migration of nations I was literally swept away and found myself “lost” and “found” in a sea of humanity rising.

Up to this point, in my head, I had already accepted and defended the equality of nations, people and language on principled grounds. I already came to the conclusion that all people have rights to their nationality, no matter what country they are a citizen of, no matter what polity they are a member of, simply because their national right to be is a fundamental human right. Citizenship and nationality are two different things and cannot be substituted one for the other. By this time I also accepted that those who produce the wealth, development, of society are the real genuine builders of the polity known as the United States and have legitimate claim to issues that most affect them, such as education, benefits, medical care and attention, etc. The loftiness in which I held these views was soon demolished as I saw with my entire being, and all its sensory functions, the word made flesh.

Since my trip to NYC to demonstrate among the working people and immigrants, regardless their citizenship and status, my sense of what my role is has become much more clearer. That is, the principles that I embraced have become like steel in me, unbreakable - unshakeable. In fact when I was among the sea of nations in Union Square, admist waving flags of many colors and celebratory chants in different languages, their voices surging through my body, I knew where I belonged and most importantly, my place.

* * * * * * * * *

After coming home from Colombia, I took some time to read the writings I had contributed to CASAS. Truly, I felt like I was reading the writings of someone else. I noticed that one of the things that this other “me” [from some other time] kept deliberating on, was the need to feel and be authentic, genuine and legitimate. I remember that time of anguish, confusion, rage and darkness.  During that time, the question of who I am and my identity hung over me like the sword of Damocles and I could not answer as I was afraid.

My name is Joshua Minchen and I am an international, inter-country adoptee. I am an American citizen and my nationality is Colombian, but I am first and foremost, a human being. I am a Proletarian Internationalist Freedom Fighter.

Damoclean sword, swing if you must, but know that will not save you.

With that, I leave you with a passage from The Motorcycle Diaries of the young Ernesto Guevara. In this passage, Guevara is addressing an elderly man that he has met on his journey, yet the content of what he says is not just for the elderly. I can easily attribute this to the migration of labor, the working people, people of all ages, as well as to us adoptees international and otherwise who have sacrificed much in terms of identity, history, self-knowledge, name, in search of family, nation, place and belonging.

“All of them, all those who can’t adapt - you and I, for instance - will die cursing the power which they helped bring about with often enormous sacrifices. Revolution is impersonal, so it will take their lives and even use their memory as an example or as an instrument to control the young people coming after them. You will die with your fist clenched and your jaw tense, the perfect manifestation of hatred and struggle, because you aren’t a symbol (some inanimate example), you are an authentic member of the society to be destroyed; the spirit of the beehive speaks through your mouth and moves through your actions. You are as useful as I am, but you don’t realize how useful your contribution is to the society that sacrifices you.”

Joshua

LISTEN: A-Trak & Diplo

Atrack & diplo at sonar 06

A familiar tune heard in a completely different way.

Hint: Listen. Unlike the goofy individual who is more concerned with the camera than what is happening soundwise on stage by DJ A-Trak and Diplo.

-OH SNAP!-

Stand as One In Defense of All!

Since the events of September 11, 2001 an atmosphere is continually being fostered by the institutions of international monopoly capital in which the bonds that exist in the polity of collectives, communities, and nations are being attacked and severed. Entire people are being single out, isolated and targeted on the grounds that they may be “terrorist”.  The Arab and Muslim communities are a case in point. 

The targeting of the Muslim communities, not only is happening here in the US, but it taking place abroad.  The angst of the Muslim French immigrants and youth against deteriating social conditions in their communities who have been depicted by the monopoly presses as “violent” and “backwards”. The Danish Cartoons, depicting racist stereotypes of Muslims and Arabs in the name of excercising “freedom of speech” while at the same time neglecting to face responsibility of what freedom of speech and the free expression of ideas entail.  The speech given by Pope Benedict in which he resurrects an almost forgotten emperor of a different time and place in history to depict Islam as “violent” and those who subscribe to the principles of Islam, namely “jihad”, as being ”unreasonable” and “illogical”.   

Amidst the turmoil taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan by US imperialism during the summer, a conflict between Israel and Lebanon rocked the world.  US President Bush, US Secretary of State Rice and the US imperialists looked on approvingly of Israel’s attack against Southern Lebanon declaring publicly that this was the beginning of a new Middle-East.  Israeli imperialism, unable to complete its objective to wipe out the Lebanese resistance organized by Hezbollah, was soundly defeated. 

Presently, the sovereign nation of Iraq is being torn apart in civil war along with the civil strife that is being sown in Lebanon after the assassination of Gemayel and targeting of the resistance for the assassination. 

As a result of all this, I would like to provide some texts and literature that speaks to some of the issues on this. 

Muslims and The Media , from Shunpiking.com

“Islamophobia” and the War on Terror, Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

FYI: A Brief History of Hezbollah, Modern Communism

FYI: Israel is Guilty of War Crimes, Modern Communism

Defend the Rights to Sovereignty and Resistance! Statement of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization, August 12, 2006

Denmark Has Lost Its Innocence, Communist Party of Denmark (Marxist-Leninist)

 An Injury to One is an Injury to All!