Brainstorming - anti-war activism.
Mar. 26th, 2003 03:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
moominmuppetFrom an email I just wrote to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sleepyaardvark
Doin' ok... I was pretty badly down a few days ago, but I'm on the upswing. I'm mostly absorbing info and trying to figure out effective ways of disseminating it, at the moment. I'm in a decent number of situations daily when I could hand out a page or two printout of information about the war and international politics (like bus-stop discussions and such -- I'm actually thinking about leaving copies of whatever at the busstops as well), and I'd like to do something like that, but I'm hoping to make it as bullet-proof as possible, and pondering what exactly that means. What approach works best in talking to folks who are flexible in their current view of the war, but are loaded down with bad information or inference from what they've heard so far in terms of actual facts? I'm extrapolating from what's been most successful in my discussions with people so far, and trying to come up with an approach directed toward the mainstream, rather than preaching to the choir. I want to address the people who are being swayed by the kinds of ridiculous email forwards that I hear people quoting repeatedly.
The following is a good case in point. Got it today from a coworker (to her credit, she just wanted to know how I'd respond to it, but the ocean of forwards previous to her shows that somebody's buying this... er... logic). Original post in bold, my responses in italics. I was typing off the cuff, so I may have a few details wrong.
"TRYING TO HELP" By Dennis Miller
All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got
my little brain spinning like a top. I enjoy reading opinions from both
sides, but I've detected a hint of confusion from some of you. Maybe this can
help.
As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice anyone
ever gave me. He told me about the "KISS" method ("Keep It Simple, Stupid!").
So with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't
quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things and recognize a few
important facts.
Here are ten things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important
issue:
(1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein ... Hussein is the bad guy.
I don't think this is an either/or question. Saddam's a psychotic megalomaniac dictator. That doesn't make up for Bush's problems, or make it less worthwhile to address the fact that he's leading our country into an imperialist political approach that's likely to destabilize the planet.
(2) If you have faith in the Useless Nations to do the right things, keep
this in mind: the UN has Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq
heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.
This is because every country that's part of the UN rotates through these positions. The entire thing is divided up by world region. A seat from Africa isn't going to be Belgium. The UN isn't perfect. It'd be a hell of a lot stronger if we weren't sabotaging it at every opportunity, though (like our recent refusal to help create an International Criminal Court for the trial of war criminals, and our refusal to allow our own citizens to be held liable to it).
(3) If you use a Google or Yahoo search and type in "French Military
Victories," don't be surprised if your computer panic's at its inability to
respond to your inquiry.
Eh. I could nit-pick this, but why? What on earth does this have to do with whether the US is behaving in an internationally responsible manner?
(4) If you only anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," hire a pit bull lawyer
and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the
cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte
deserves.
True, to some extent. This war cannot be simplified to that slogan. It's much more about a fundamental change in how we're dealing with international relations, and an attempt to change our political power within the middle-east.
(5) You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT seek UN
approval before they try to kill us.
Um, yeah? And? We should, as a planet, retreat to the least common denominator in terms of ethical behavior? That sounds like a lovely place to live.
(6) Despite common belief among some, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He
only plays one on TV.
Again... So? This is an argument for war?
(7) If you are anti-war and even an outright "America Basher," to bin Laden
you are still an "infidel" whom he wants dead.
True. I've yet to hear a single American anti-war protestor say "We're arguing against this war because Saddam and Bin Laden are good fun guys". Besides. Bin Laden? Iraq? Connection, please?
(8) Be careful: if you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in
the danger that Hussein poses, the only job you may be able to get is as an
Ivy League college professor.
Or one of the "hippy peace-nik types" discussed in this article: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15453
(9) Even multi-culturalists who try to browbeat us into believing that all
cultures are equally deserving of respect have trouble explaining the past
500 year of Islam.
Actually, from a religious history perspective, it isn't hard to explain at all. Doesn't mean it's all pretty, any more than the hatred spewing from some branches of christianity is pretty. Very few people are arguing that there aren't human rights issues that need to be addressed in many islamic countries (not like we don't have plenty of human rights issues at home, however). We are arguing that pre-emptive bombing is damn stupid way of doing it, as well as being illegal under international law.
(10) Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and women
overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these issues. They
deserve our unreserved support.
They deserve our support. They're in a shitty situation because our president's a power-hungry idiot. They are not, however, fighting for our right to speak out. Iraq isn't invading us and trying to censor our speech. As a matter of fact, it's conservative pundits who are calling for treason trials for anti-war activists (sometimes in full-page newspaper ads).
Frankly, I don't see a single item in the above list that addresses anything except hawkish stereotypes of why anti-war protestors are protesting. It doesn't substantively address a single issue. It's a throw-away "Rah, rah, protestors are idiots" piece that's barely different from a million others showing up on conservative talk shows. I don't normally expect quite this level of idiocy from Dennis Miller, but I'm not deeply shocked, either.
Thoughts on what I'd like to either find or assemble to distribute:
1. It can't be phrased in an inflammatory, impassioned manner. That'd lose a bunch of folks right there.
2. Facts stated need to be backed up, preferably with mainstream or govermental citations, since many people will dismiss progressive publications out of hand as biased sources.
3. It needs to focus on why This War is problematic, not why war in general sucks. Most people agree that war in general sucks, but there's an awful lot of diversity of opinion in whether it is, nonetheless, necessary in some situations, and even more in regards to which situations those might be. Going hardcore antiwar in format won't reach those people.
4. I have a personal squick about outrightly evangelical approaches, so I'd rather phrase the entire thing in terms of "These are the facts that cause me to object to this war", rather than "You must do/say/believe this". Teaching vs preaching, basically.
5. It needs to acknowledge that there are topics around the war that are factual, and topics in which it's a matter of differing political philosophies/beliefs in human nature/etc. It needs to clearly separate the writer's opinion from the facts. Additionally, it can not shy away from facts that are inconvenient.
6. It needs to be accessible to people without advanced academic backgrounds without oversimplifying.
7. It won't be able to tackle the multitude of issues that are currently going on, so it has to be narrowed to some main points.
8. An FAQ format might be good.
Actually, I'm going to go post this in my journal to ask for ideas and brainstorming...
--Sarah
Anyway... I'm really interested in any feedback, input, critique, etc, here.
sleepyaardvarkDoin' ok... I was pretty badly down a few days ago, but I'm on the upswing. I'm mostly absorbing info and trying to figure out effective ways of disseminating it, at the moment. I'm in a decent number of situations daily when I could hand out a page or two printout of information about the war and international politics (like bus-stop discussions and such -- I'm actually thinking about leaving copies of whatever at the busstops as well), and I'd like to do something like that, but I'm hoping to make it as bullet-proof as possible, and pondering what exactly that means. What approach works best in talking to folks who are flexible in their current view of the war, but are loaded down with bad information or inference from what they've heard so far in terms of actual facts? I'm extrapolating from what's been most successful in my discussions with people so far, and trying to come up with an approach directed toward the mainstream, rather than preaching to the choir. I want to address the people who are being swayed by the kinds of ridiculous email forwards that I hear people quoting repeatedly.
The following is a good case in point. Got it today from a coworker (to her credit, she just wanted to know how I'd respond to it, but the ocean of forwards previous to her shows that somebody's buying this... er... logic). Original post in bold, my responses in italics. I was typing off the cuff, so I may have a few details wrong.
"TRYING TO HELP" By Dennis Miller
All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got
my little brain spinning like a top. I enjoy reading opinions from both
sides, but I've detected a hint of confusion from some of you. Maybe this can
help.
As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice anyone
ever gave me. He told me about the "KISS" method ("Keep It Simple, Stupid!").
So with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't
quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things and recognize a few
important facts.
Here are ten things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important
issue:
(1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein ... Hussein is the bad guy.
I don't think this is an either/or question. Saddam's a psychotic megalomaniac dictator. That doesn't make up for Bush's problems, or make it less worthwhile to address the fact that he's leading our country into an imperialist political approach that's likely to destabilize the planet.
(2) If you have faith in the Useless Nations to do the right things, keep
this in mind: the UN has Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq
heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.
This is because every country that's part of the UN rotates through these positions. The entire thing is divided up by world region. A seat from Africa isn't going to be Belgium. The UN isn't perfect. It'd be a hell of a lot stronger if we weren't sabotaging it at every opportunity, though (like our recent refusal to help create an International Criminal Court for the trial of war criminals, and our refusal to allow our own citizens to be held liable to it).
(3) If you use a Google or Yahoo search and type in "French Military
Victories," don't be surprised if your computer panic's at its inability to
respond to your inquiry.
Eh. I could nit-pick this, but why? What on earth does this have to do with whether the US is behaving in an internationally responsible manner?
(4) If you only anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," hire a pit bull lawyer
and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the
cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte
deserves.
True, to some extent. This war cannot be simplified to that slogan. It's much more about a fundamental change in how we're dealing with international relations, and an attempt to change our political power within the middle-east.
(5) You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT seek UN
approval before they try to kill us.
Um, yeah? And? We should, as a planet, retreat to the least common denominator in terms of ethical behavior? That sounds like a lovely place to live.
(6) Despite common belief among some, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He
only plays one on TV.
Again... So? This is an argument for war?
(7) If you are anti-war and even an outright "America Basher," to bin Laden
you are still an "infidel" whom he wants dead.
True. I've yet to hear a single American anti-war protestor say "We're arguing against this war because Saddam and Bin Laden are good fun guys". Besides. Bin Laden? Iraq? Connection, please?
(8) Be careful: if you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in
the danger that Hussein poses, the only job you may be able to get is as an
Ivy League college professor.
Or one of the "hippy peace-nik types" discussed in this article: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15453
(9) Even multi-culturalists who try to browbeat us into believing that all
cultures are equally deserving of respect have trouble explaining the past
500 year of Islam.
Actually, from a religious history perspective, it isn't hard to explain at all. Doesn't mean it's all pretty, any more than the hatred spewing from some branches of christianity is pretty. Very few people are arguing that there aren't human rights issues that need to be addressed in many islamic countries (not like we don't have plenty of human rights issues at home, however). We are arguing that pre-emptive bombing is damn stupid way of doing it, as well as being illegal under international law.
(10) Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and women
overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these issues. They
deserve our unreserved support.
They deserve our support. They're in a shitty situation because our president's a power-hungry idiot. They are not, however, fighting for our right to speak out. Iraq isn't invading us and trying to censor our speech. As a matter of fact, it's conservative pundits who are calling for treason trials for anti-war activists (sometimes in full-page newspaper ads).
Frankly, I don't see a single item in the above list that addresses anything except hawkish stereotypes of why anti-war protestors are protesting. It doesn't substantively address a single issue. It's a throw-away "Rah, rah, protestors are idiots" piece that's barely different from a million others showing up on conservative talk shows. I don't normally expect quite this level of idiocy from Dennis Miller, but I'm not deeply shocked, either.
Thoughts on what I'd like to either find or assemble to distribute:
1. It can't be phrased in an inflammatory, impassioned manner. That'd lose a bunch of folks right there.
2. Facts stated need to be backed up, preferably with mainstream or govermental citations, since many people will dismiss progressive publications out of hand as biased sources.
3. It needs to focus on why This War is problematic, not why war in general sucks. Most people agree that war in general sucks, but there's an awful lot of diversity of opinion in whether it is, nonetheless, necessary in some situations, and even more in regards to which situations those might be. Going hardcore antiwar in format won't reach those people.
4. I have a personal squick about outrightly evangelical approaches, so I'd rather phrase the entire thing in terms of "These are the facts that cause me to object to this war", rather than "You must do/say/believe this". Teaching vs preaching, basically.
5. It needs to acknowledge that there are topics around the war that are factual, and topics in which it's a matter of differing political philosophies/beliefs in human nature/etc. It needs to clearly separate the writer's opinion from the facts. Additionally, it can not shy away from facts that are inconvenient.
6. It needs to be accessible to people without advanced academic backgrounds without oversimplifying.
7. It won't be able to tackle the multitude of issues that are currently going on, so it has to be narrowed to some main points.
8. An FAQ format might be good.
Actually, I'm going to go post this in my journal to ask for ideas and brainstorming...
--Sarah
Anyway... I'm really interested in any feedback, input, critique, etc, here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-26 01:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-26 03:57 pm (UTC)But in response to the second bit. You might want to start with what people can do that would maybe have a result. I am one of the on-the-fence types who thinks that protesting the war at this point is futile. Perhaps if it continues on past the countries acceptance or gets too ugly for our sensibilities protest might be worthwile again.
But a good point to start might be what to do and what the outcome would be. I'd be very interested to see what action does have a result.
To avoid thrusting your opinion too harshly you could even start with "If you want to..."
and then the action and then the reason why.
I think I'm just spouting straight madison avenue here but those tactics do work.
Anyway, I'd be very interested to see what you come up with.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-26 04:29 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-03-27 06:04 am (UTC)This particular offering did run in the Times Record News, the only newspaper in Wichita Falls, Texas. It appeared as a Letter to the Editor on 26 February 2003, with its author identified as W. Wayne Schields of Wichita Falls. How the piece came to be attributed to Dennis Miller remains a mystery. We're left to suspect that someone, in an effort to imbue the essay with credibility, slapped the popular comedian's name onto something he particularly liked and wanted others to likewise appreciate.
We can substantiate that the two checkable points in the rant do indeed stand up to scrutiny: The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is chaired by Najat Al-Hajjaji of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Iraq was selected to head the United Nations' Conference on Disarmament scheduled to be held in Geneva beginning in May 2003. (Which country chairs the U.N. Conference on Disarmament is determined through "purely automatic rotation by alphabetical order.") However, in mid-February Iraq informed the U.N. that it was giving up its turn at the rotating presidency of the disarmament forum; since Iran had already given up its turn to chair the body as well, the position fell upon the next country on the alphabetical list, Ireland.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-27 05:05 am (UTC)I told that joke at work they didn't get it. I have to quit.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-28 10:00 am (UTC)Oy.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 11:54 am (UTC)Still it'd be kind of cool if it is the end times. I mean one wouldn't need to wonder about their faith anymore. Even I'd be like, "woah. I guess there is a God. Imagine that." And be running to the nearest baptismal. Which would be awfully funny.
Y'know half of us heathen types would be like, "Oh, I knew it all along, I just didn't want to play my hand too soon."
Seriously though, who would go up in the rapture? The true believers I know are mostly not that pure or downright un-christian. The holiest people I know are Bahai but Jesus doesn't call them home does he? Certainly the clergy have mostly been damned for centuries. Maybe it did happen and Jimmy Hoffa was the only one pure enough to go.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-27 11:26 am (UTC)From: http://www.livejournal.com/community/antiwar/1041001.html
The energy and commitment emanating from our local anti-war formations create a good basis for developing future peace and justice work in our city. But to realize our potential for building a mass movement requires, first and foremost, clarity as to who actually constitutes the "mainstream" and why. The right, the corporate media and elite policy makers persist in painting "mainstream America" as white and middle class. Even many white liberals cling to the notion that building a mass movement against war necessitates the use of techniques and rhetoric that "don't scare away" middle class whites. This way of thinking is anachronistic. The nation's demographics have changed sharply over the last 40 years, even more dramatically over the last decade, with the result that people of color are fast becoming a majority in the U.S. More importantly, since people of color-war's principal targets-have the greatest interest in holding back the war tide and, thus, activists of color have the most politically developed perspectives on the subject, they are a key source of ideas on how to strengthen work and improve outreach. Add to this the fact that more and more white working class and middle class families are struggling to survive under the crushing burden of globalization's negative effects and it becomes clear that resistance against the Bush war machine must reflect the spectrum of needs, aspirations, goals, intellectual resources and colors of a multiracial, multinational, multilingual and multi-class mainstream.