Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Alienating people from the anti-war movement / Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

Expand Messages
  • Less Antman
    And in Britain, the Quakers used a strategy of persuasion intended to change the public mood in favor of the abolition of slavery, gain mass support from the
    Message 1 of 157 , Oct 1 2:14 AM
      And in Britain, the Quakers used a strategy of persuasion intended to change the public mood in favor of the abolition of slavery, gain mass support from the average Brit, and use that to apply pressure to the Parliament to vote it out of existence. They succeeded decades before the Americans, without the level of mass murder that resulted from the hatred between the South and the North, and with many fewer after-effects in terms of horrendous relationships between whites and blacks and between North and South.

      Thomas Clarkson, who is given the most credit for British abolition, so disliked William Lloyd Garrison that he refused to endorse his organization: he felt Garrison was dividing a movement that could have been working together and antagonized fewer people.

      So there are different perspectives on this.



      --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Charles Johnson <feedback@...> wrote:
      >
      > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      > Hash: SHA1
      >
      > On 9/30/2009 7:07 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:
      >
      > > All this is true, but I'm not making a case on moral grounds. I'm
      > > asking what actions here at home are more likely to prevent more wars
      > > from occuring, and which are more likely to contribute to more wars
      > > occuring. I submit that making people dislike anti-war folks is more
      > > likely to contribute to future wars than to prevent future wars.
      >
      > Only if you think that the best way for the anti-war movement to stop
      > wars is to maximize the number of people who identify with the anti-war
      > movement. This kind of thing is a common belief about how politics work;
      > but I'd submit that there's actually very little evidence for it. (When
      > it is defended at all, it is usually defended by reference to a very
      > rose-tinted picture of how democratic politics is supposed to work --
      > something like, "Well, obviously we need more people to identify with
      > the movement, because then more people will vote against wars, and if
      > more people vote against wars, there will be fewer wars.")
      >
      > During the struggle over slavery, there were a lot of debates over the
      > tone that abolitionists should take, with "ultras" like William Lloyd
      > Garrison, Wendell Phillips and Frederick Douglass arguing that
      > abolitionists should (1) uncompromisingly insist on immediate abolition
      > rather than gradualist schemes, regardless of whether or not their
      > audience was ready to accept it; and (2) take a very harsh stance, up to
      > and including public rebuke to, and dissociation from, people or
      > organizations that collaborated with slavery (such as leaving churches
      > that accepted unrepentant slaveholders as members). Meanwhile more
      > conservative antislavery writers and speakers (such as the clerical
      > abolitionists who bolted from AAS, after unsuccessful attempts to oust
      > the Garrisonians, to form the AFAS) argued that this sort of thing was
      > alienating and retarded the progress of the anti-slavery movement,
      > because (in part) it made people feel more hostile towards
      > abolitionists. Until the late 1960s or so, the conventional view among
      > historians was to favor the conservative view, to praise the "pragmatic"
      > view (which was viewed as the ultimate source of Lincoln and the rise of
      > the Republican Party, who were in turn credited with everything). But a
      > lot of the newer histories and biographies that have come out since then
      > have, I think, made a very persuasive case that this take on the history
      > was shaped more by the political needs of "Progressive" and "Vital
      > Center" historians writing in the context of Jim Crow America than it
      > was shaped by the facts on the ground; and that a serious look at folks
      > like Garrison, Phillips and Douglass played an essential role in the
      > really astonishing shift in attitudes towards slavery and the slave
      > system that occurred over the course of 3 decades in the 1830s, 1840s,
      > and 1850s. Not because their radicalism and their harshness convinced
      > pro-slavery people to like abolitionism, but rather precisely because it
      > provoked them, and forced them to enter into a real moral debate about
      > slavery, as a matter of principle. Lots of people in the 1840s and 1850s
      > who didn't much care for, or actively hated, abolitionists, ended up
      > becoming more and more uncomfortable with slavery, and more and more
      > uncomfortable with collaborating with slavery, precisely because there
      > were people out there being as harsh and unflinching as possible --
      > people who shifted the center of the moral debate, not because they
      > convinced a lot of people to adopt their own position at first, but
      > rather because they pushed out the horizons of the debate, thus
      > pioneering a lot of new forms of activism (which had hardly been seen
      > before), and raising the stakes in the debate in ways that
      > moderation-bound reformists could never have done.
      >
      > My own view is that we should not worry too much about making more
      > people like the anti-war movement. (Of course, I'd be happy if more
      > people liked the anti-war movement; but I don't think that there are
      > other goals that are more important.) Rather, I'm much more concerned
      > about convincing people who already like the anti-war movement to some
      > extent to adopt, and to feel more comfortable in coming out and speaking
      > up for, a more radical and uncompromising anti-war position. And also
      > convincing those people who do like the anti-war movement to stop
      > wasting their energy on unproductive forms of political activity (like
      > voting for Democrats), and to devote more of their energy to methods
      > that are potentially much more productive -- like counter-recruiting, or
      > war tax resistance, or hot cargo strikes, or other forms of direct
      > action. (The two are really interrelated; since often one of the things
      > that you need to do to convince people to start adopting serious direct
      > action tactics rather than sign-waving or ballot-boxing is to more fully
      > convince them of the urgency of the problem, the impossibility of "good
      > wars," and the complicity of all political parties in the warfare state.
      > And the direct action tactics have the significant benefit that they
      > don't necessarily need majority support to succeed; what they need to
      > succeed is as much or more about depth of commitment as it is about
      > breadth of numbers.)
      >
      > - -C
      > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
      > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
      >
      > iD8DBQFKxBkV1dpUSIv3yzMRAmZHAKCnx6HX6d1kq44F0MbdXgPnW6hB8gCfY7tE
      > /ExxmjdTMzAWtkBhzCvFh5s=
      > =C8aZ
      > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
      >
    • Dan
      I actually agree with you here. I think Jeff went too far in that direction. But this is a matter of taste. Sometimes a joke isn t funny, to me, if it feels
      Message 157 of 157 , Oct 2 6:29 AM
        I actually agree with you here. I think Jeff went too far in that direction. But this is a matter of taste. Sometimes a joke isn't funny, to me, if it feels overwritten. I've recently watching the American version of "The Office." I loved the British version, but I'm finding the problem with the American version, for me, is that the jokes are too overdone. With the British one, for me, it felt like they would do something funny, know the audience got it, and move on to the next incident. With the American one, they have to keep hammering at the same joke until it gets boring -- for me. IMHO, Jeff Olson did that here.
         
        Regards,
         
        Dan

        From: "jeo1@..." <jeo1@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, October 1, 2009 5:55:09 PM
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Meanwhile, back on the playground...

         

        Very funny. Your concern is touching.

        Now JO and DU, we don't want to sound like 6th graders do we? One might think your message here is just a wee bit childish.

        Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®


        From: Jeff Olson
        Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:27:48 -0500
        To: <LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com>
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Meanwhile, back on the playground.. .

         

        Agreed.  If he suffers from anything it would probably be a classic case of Assholus Blowhardus.  It's a tragic disease which renders some misfortunate individuals to be capable only of expressing themselves via blowing their words out their ass.  Nothing subtle (or minty fresh) about that.
         
        Sadly,
         
        Jeff
         
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Dan
        Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:23 PM
        Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Meanwhile, back on the playground.. .

         

        Might be a subtle insult cast at Jeff Riggenbach. But I don't think Jim suffers from being subtle.
         
        Regards,
         
        Dan

        From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@gmail. com>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Thu, October 1, 2009 5:06:18 PM
        Subject: Re: Meanwhile, back on the playground.. ./was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance
         

        Was the misspelling of disrespect also a sign of disrespect (one can't help but wonder)?
         
        Jeff :)
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Dan
        Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:00 PM
        Subject: Meanwhile, back on the playground.. ./was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

         

        What is this? The six grade? I believe you need to give it a rest. (No, I'm not the moderator and I'm not telling you how to live you life, but I'm giving my unsolicited judgment here.)
         
        Regards,
         
        Dan

        From: "jeo1@verizon. net" <jeo1@verizon. net>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Thu, October 1, 2009 1:16:30 PM
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance
         

        That's on purpose, a sign of disrepect.

        Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®


        From: Jeff Olson
        Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:27:10 -0500
        To: <LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com>
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

         

        "Flying saucers Olsen?"  Hmmm...thanks for the tip, buddy.  I just might look for him.  Sounds like he might be a long-lost relative of mine or something.
         
        Jeff
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:33 PM
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

         

        Why don't u go outside and check for flying saucers olsen? Report your "findings" to us later. Much later.

        Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

        From: Jeff Olson
        Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:26:58 -0500
        To: <LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com>
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

         

        For what it's worth, Jeffrey, I think you could kick his ass - both literally and figuratively.  You're a pretty big guy, with a big vocabulary, and that cane of yours sounds nasty.
         
        :-)  Jeff
        .



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.