Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest Current rating: 3
by Chicago Coalition Against War & Racism
Email: ccawr (nospam) aol.com (unverified!)
Phone: 888.471.0874
Address: c/o CABN, 4404 N. Magnolia, Suite 420, Chicago, IL 60640 15 Jan 2004
This past Saturday afternoon, January 10th, over 110 individuals and representatives of organizations came out to begin organizing the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest in Chicago.
The 110 individuals and representatives came out in response to the call reprinted at the bottom of this notice.

After a discussion of process, it was decided that all proposals would need to be ratified by a 3/5’s majority of those voting. After much time was spent discussing visions of the protest, those assembled agreed upon the following slogans:

The Midwest STILL Says No to War
Troops Out Now!
End the Occupations of Iraq, Palestine & Afghanistan!

The next general organizing meeting was set for Saturday, January 24th. Part of the purpose of this notice is to inform people that a venue has been secured for this next meeting. The January 24th meeting will be from 11 am to 2 pm at Agape House, 1046 W. Polk Street, Chicago. While the original call for the protest was widely circulated, many spoke in favor of continuing to work for as broad a participation as possible in the organizing of this protest. Therefore we urge everyone receiving this notice to use it to spread the word to those who may not seen the original call for the protest, and encourage their active participation in the January 24th meeting and the other meetings listed below.

Due to time limitations this past Saturday, we were unable to get to an important part of the meeting – the breaking out into working groups. When this past Saturday’s agenda was passed, we agreed that those working groups would include: 1) Logistics; 2) Outreach; and 3) Media/Propaganda. It was decided that a Program working group would begin meeting later. Of course, other working groups can be proposed if necessary. To make up for the fact that the working groups were unable to meet on Saturday, we have scheduled meetings of them as follows:

1) Logistics working group, 7 pm, Wednesday, January 21 at the University of Illinois (Chicago), Behavioral Sciences Building, 1001 W. Harrison Street, Room 117, Chicago.

2) Outreach working group, 7 pm, Thursday, January 22 at the University of Illinois (Chicago), Behavioral Sciences Building, 1001 W. Harrison Street, Room 117, Chicago.

3) Media/Propaganda working group, 7 pm, Thursday, January 22 at the University of Illinois (Chicago), Behavioral Sciences Building, 1001 W. Harrison Street, Room 119, Chicago.

To those who had hoped to participate in a particular working group but are unavailable for the particular meeting(s) listed above, we apologize. As was the plan with the orginal agenda, these working groups will begin work and formulate proposals for the larger Saturday, January 24th meeting listed above. Whether or not you were able to attend the January 10th meeting, we invite you participate in the January 21-22 working group meetings and/or the January 24th meeting. There is much that still needs to be decided, and much work that needs to be done in order to help the Midwest contribute as strong a voice as possible on March 20th.

Here is the original text of the original call for the protest:

Subject: Call for a March 20, 2004 Midwest Regional Anti-War Demonstration in Chicago

**** PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY **** PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY ****

Practically every day brings fresh evidence of the disaster that is the United States occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. From Palestine to Korea, Columbia to the Philippines, the United States increasingly is seen as the greatest threat to world peace and justice. While the lies used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq have been denounced by some politicians--mostly after the invasion itself was a done deal--all leading politicians continue to support the occupation, some as a positive “good,” others as an unfortunate “necessity” to preserve American imperial “credibility.”

The peace and justice movement in the U.S. needs to speak with a clear voice, a voice which demands respect for the absolute right of the Iraqi people, and all other peoples of the world, to decide their own destinies, without occupying armies, without commercial schemes to rip off their national wealth, without puppets imposed on them from Washington. We need to give voice to the growing sentiment within Iraq, within the U.S. armed forces, and here at home for an immediate END to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

March 20th marks the anniversary of the first full day of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It also is the one-year anniversary of one of Chicago’s most memorable protests ever--the night over 10,000 people marched on Lake Shore Drive in protest against George Bush’s illegal and immoral war (cabn.org/press/040403reader_taken.htm, cabn.org/press/040403reader_boys.htm). In concert with the national initiatives of the ANSWER and the United For Peace & Justice Coalitions, the Chicago Coalition Against War & Racism (CCAWR) has chosen to commit its resources to help organize a midwest regional anti-war demonstration here in Chicago on March 20, 2004.

Aside from the date of the protest, nothing else has been decided. This is intentional. We have left the precise time and location of the protest and specifying its major theme(s) undetermined so that participating individuals and organizations can collectively create the most dynamic and influential event possible. To make these decisions, we call on peace, justice, and civil rights forces from around the region to send representatives to an organizing meeting in Chicago on the evening of Thursday, January 8th [date was later changed to Saturday, Jan. 10th—ed] to begin making the decisions necessary to organize a midwest regional demonstration demanding the end of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The meeting will take place at 6:30 pm in the lower level of the First Methodist Temple, 77 W. Washington Street, Chicago.

For more information, email CCAWR (at) aol.com or call 888.471.0874.
See also:
chicagoantiwar.org


Comments
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by report back
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2004
here is the report arguing over a slogan for three
hours with a bunch of whiny ass liberals
fuck the liberals
smash the state


Rate this comment
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by me
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2004
liberals, your boring uneventful peace parades have accomplised nothing. it's time to get serious. are there anarchists active in chicago?


Rate this comment
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by not another boring one
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2004
there is an anarchist planning meeting.


Rate this comment
From Protest to Politics
by bam
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
17 Jan 2004
A bunch of the liberal groups are more interested in helping Democrats get back into the White House than they are in strongly opposing war and injustice.

They want to use sleezy PR techniques to stage-manage a tame and legal march. They would love to be totally controlled by the cops, just as long as their "Dump Bush" signs are all over the TV.

They're afraid a bunch of wild anarchists will steal attention and TV time with shows of real resistance.

They're afraid to piss of Mayor Daley.

FUCK THE LIBERALS AND THE POLITICANS!
EVERYONE INTO THE STREETS ON MARCH 20!

See the newswire for the first anarchist planning meeting.


Rate this comment
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by Another M20 Rad
(No verified email address) Current rating: 3
17 Jan 2004
As a radical who works frequently with many of the anarchist and anti-authoritarian groups in the area I sincerely doubt that the people posting the previous couple of messages are anarchists. I would bet that the messages were posted by trolls or pigs just trying to start a rant session of back and forth attacks between forces that should be working together, IF possible, to build for a single demonstration on March 20.

If this person is in fact an anarchist then they are being very counter-productive with their missives and I would respectfully request that they refrain from doing so b/c it get's us nowhere and only increases the divide. I say fuck the liberals a lot too but I'm also willing to work with them respectfully when they are willing to play fair and respect democracy. Let's not give the liberal elements anymore ammo to use against us as they try to lay blame for the situation on the left and radical forces.

PLEASE DON'T BUY INTO THIS EXTERNAL AND HOLLOW ATTEMPT AT DIVISION.


Rate this comment
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by bam
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
18 Jan 2004
Actually, I am an anarchist.

I'm not trying to be divisive. I wrote the above post because it is very important for people to consider the motivating forces behind different groups that have come together to plan March 20.

I should not have used the term, "Liberal groups". There are many liberal groups that do great work and I hope they all come out on March 20. The "Fuck the liberals" comment was out of line.

But there are groups, such as UFPJ, that have a history of subverting true democratic organizing of mass protests. There are groups like CAWI who are in bed with the democrats. There are the Union leaders who are beholden to the capitalist system and who do not really represent the views of workers.

We're you at the Jan. 10 meeting?

Did you hear the Union leader suggest that one way to organize protests is to let groups with the biggest "power base" have the most say, and that another way is to have the groups who can front the most money have the most say?

Did you see how UFPJ tried to exert control over the planning process? Do you know they have already reserved Daley Plaza for March 20 and have printed up call-to-protest stickers with their own slogans? All this while saying the March 20 planning needs to be more democratic and open.

Most of the groups and individuals working on March 20 are interested in stopping US wars and home and abroad and protecting civil liberties. A few groups are interested in using the protest to help Democrats win the 2004 election. In order to do this, they need to have a controlled, stage-managed protest.

These same few groups tried to make a power grab in the organizing meeting. They will oppose militant resistance to war and occupation and a diversity of tactic on March 20.

I hope you come to the anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian M20 planning meeting on Tuesday. I think this topic is an important addition to the agenda.


Rate this comment
Re: Bam's comment
by DC
(No verified email address) Current rating: 3
19 Jan 2004
I understand what you're saying Bam, but think of it another way:
How do you think you'll get to a point where there's enough anti-capitalists/anarchists/socialists/etc. to actually change the world? I mean, most people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they're radicals. Most radicals actually start out as liberals and shift when they run nto something that disgusts them about the Democrats.
So maybe the answer isn't to dismiss groups like UFPJ and different unions that support the Dems, but to actually have arguments with their members and try to win them to a different point of view.
It is having an effect already--for example, UFPJ is now taking the issue of Palestine under discussion. It will be a great dtep forward if they change their minds on this--it will help build a larger, stronger, more inclusive antiwar movement, and that would be best for everybpdy that wants to get the U.S. out of the Middle East.


Rate this comment
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by Carl Davidson
carld717 (nospam) aol.com (unverified) Current rating: 3
19 Jan 2004
Here's my two cents worth in this discussion, and I'm only speaking for myself, not CAWI or UFPJ.

First, it is less than useful to label people as racists or pro-Zionist because they want a March 20 demo focused on Iraq and its impact at home. I am a long-time supporter of the Palestinian cause and will continue to do so for as long as it takes to win victory. No tactical disagreements about slogans or orientation in a demonstration can undermine that.

The main point is being avoided. There are a lot more people who are simply opposed to the war in Iraq than there are people who are opposed to the occupations of Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan--a LOT more. The former slogan can reach both the left and the center of American society, while the latter cannot reach much beyond the left itself.

Many people,for instance, would read the "end the occupation of Afghanistan" slogan as a call to cease efforts to put Al-Quaeda out of business. If you can't see that there are large numbers of geniune opponents of this war that are also opponents of bin Laden's terrorists, then I don't know what to say to you. Does that mean I favor the occupation of Afghanistan? No, it means that politics is sometimes more complex than a slogan.

Does this mean that people cannot bring slogans and banners around Palestine and Afghanistan or other matters to a unified demo? Of course not. Nor does it mean these issues can't be spoken to from the speakers' platform. But it does mean that the central focus is on the war and occupation of Iraq, its impact here, and how to end it.

Second, March 20 is not about who to vote for in 2004, or whether to vote for anyone. But it should be inclusive of the millions of antiwar people who will vote vs Bush however they can. If you can't see that there are a great many people who are both determined to end this war and determined to vote Bush out of office as a way to end the war, then you are looking far too narrowly at the political landscape of this country. We should want them at our action and we should want the antiwar politicians who speak for them at our action, like Alderman Joe Moore and others here in Chicago that have spoken at our rallies before.

Finally, on militancy. We can have demonstrations with thousands of young people playing tag with cops in the street. Or we can have far larger demos that grandmothers and people with kids in baby carriages feel comfortable at. Sometimes, we can even do both on the same day. We should learn something from an old Chinese maxim on warfare: Don't do want you feel like doing most; instead do what you enemy least wants you to do.

The real issue, as I see it, is whether you want an action not going much beyond expressing the views of an anti-imperialist bloc or an action that tries to pull out a broad left-center alliance to end the occupation of Iraq now.


Rate this comment
Carl's a bit too cautious
by DC
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
19 Jan 2004
Let's be honest Carl--Fact is, there are Israeli Air Force colnels refusing to serve and taking about the iccupation of Palestine bein g an utter disaster--why shouldn't we?
My aim as an activist in the antiwar movement isn't just to stop THIS war and this occupation, but to actually carry out an argument that helps push our movement forward on other questions as well--and that includes why the occupation of Palestine is brutal and wrong.


You're right that the protest should be inclusive--but that doesn't mean ducking issues just to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Frankly, it's a bit insulting to ordinary people who are against the occupation of Iraq to expect that they can't get the fact that the occupation of Palestine is equally as wrong.

It's true that the demand may alienate a few people--but raising it in the first place (at a time when people are more aware than since Vietnam what an "occupation" actually means) means that we're much more likely to win people to our side than at any time in the past several years.

That will ultimately make our movement stronger.


Rate this comment
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by marat
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
20 Jan 2004
Frankly, if Carl D's primary objective is to bring the largest group of people together who might disagree to one degree or another with the current trajectory of US policy toward Iraq ( described somewhat disingenously in his post as a "broad left-center alliance" ) - while sidestepping the questions of Afghanistan, Palestine or related issues of US imperial intervention and occupation, it certainly explains why CAWI-UFPJ would act unilaterally to try and set the terms for March 20th at the last organizing meeting, rather than participate in the messy and contentious work of organizing a democratically determined and unified citywide action for that day. CAWI-UFPJ's vision for M-20 might be billed more accurately as 'Chicago Still Says No to War -- by Invitation Only'.

That many local antiwar activists are skeptical about what CAWI-UFPJ'a agenda for M-20 is also not surprising. It would certainly provide CAWI-UFPJ with a stage to showcase their current voter registration campaign. It would also allow key trade union leaders ( or at the very least, paid staff )the opportunity to stand next to local political operatives without having to rub shoulders with assorted leftists, Arab Americans from the South Side, S. Asian folks from Devon Ave, Puerto Rican independence advocates from Humboldt Park, day laborers from Albany Park, housing and anti-police brutality advocates from the Robert Taylor homes, former Illinois Death Row inmates, anarchists, ( or as one alderman put it..'anti-globalization crazies' ) and others who might not be entirely down with the program.

And above all else, it would avoid any action in the streets that could recall the events of last year, and embarrass the Mayor.

As a bonus, Daley Plaza rally organizers will have the opportunity to motivate future turnout by CAWI's newly registered voter base to support whatever Democratic Party candidate will run against Bush in the general elections. Maybe John Kerry, flush with his victory in the Iowa caucuses, might make an appearance. Or perhaps General Wesley Clark - a favorite with some CAWI-UFPJ organizers - could appear with a spiffy honor guard from the School of the Americas.


Rate this comment
Davidson's Objectives
by bam
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
20 Jan 2004
From a June 6, 2003 Tribune Article

"[Mairlyn] Kats and Carl Davidson,a felow [CAWI] board member, wrote a treatise arguing that the anti-war movement must plunge into the 2004 elections. The report [is titled], 'Moving from Protest to Politics: Dumping Bush in 2004.'"

This same article, that Katz and Davidson were both interviewed for, gives UFPJ credit for planning the March 20 protests in Chicago. These protests were actually planned by a coalition brought together by CCAWR. Do you think CAWI and UFPJ would have pushed to take over Lake Shore Drive? Never.


Rate this comment
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by Carl Davidson
carld717 (nospam) aol.com (unverified) Current rating: 0
21 Jan 2004
Not only did we (CAWI) support the Lake Shore Drive action, we took part in it. We also took part in the press conference with CCAWR vs the police afterwards. Sorry if we don't fit your stereotypes! By the way, why am I one of the few who signs his real name in this discussion?


Rate this comment
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by Hmm..
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
21 Jan 2004
Does it matter about names, Carl?

It seems like you sign your name--but you don't take up any of the issues around the debate--like why you think other people aren't smart enough to be won to opposing the occupation of Palestine--or why you think it's okay for UFPJ and others to cut off entire sections of the Muslim and Arab communities (over 100 groups have signed onto the open letter now) from antiwar organizing.

The real issue is: are you going to continue to cater to the lowest common denominator, or do you actually want to see a movement against U.S. imperialism (including the movement against US support for Israel) grow? The only way to do the latter is by NOT ducking the question in the first place. Today, with US troops in Iraq openly carrying out the same tactics that Israelis use against palestinians, we have a better opportunity to raise the question of Palestine as a part of our movement and actually push things forward politically.

Who, exactly, do you think we'll be alienating? Other than Zionists and racists, I'm not that concerned about alienating people. Exactly WHAT groups have threatened to walk out of March 20 if the demand over Palestine is taken up? I know of none.

I know of over 100 Arab and Muslim groups that have issued a call for it to be taken up, however. (Even if I disagree with the "do it or go to hell" attitude of the letter--I prefer to think that arguing with UFPJ actually does matter, and it won't help of these two groups just split without actually debating the issue.)

The decision seems to be: include the demand around Palestine and risk alienating a few people (maybe--after all, no one can seem to name any organization that has actually threatened to walk out of March 20 on principle if the demand is taken up)--or, alienate over 100!! Arab and Muslim groups by NOT taking up the demand.

Seems to be a clear choice to me about which one actually will weaken our movement.

CARL--please respond to the issues raised here. I'd really like to see what you have to say.


Rate this comment
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by Carl Davidson
carld717 (nospam) aol.com (unverified) Current rating: 0
21 Jan 2004
The question is not who is going to walk out; it's who's not going to bother to come in in the first place. I've already been told that a number of unions in town won't join with the thrust that you have defined. People always have the option of waiting until something that suits them come along or doing something themselves. It's one of the reasons we formed CAWI in the first place, rather than simply join one of the existing anti-imperialist blocs. Besides, I'm thinking more of the sentiment I see among ordinary folks themselves, rather than non-left groups per se, ie, I run into a lot of ordinary people very upset with this war and on the verge of doing something about it, voting or coming to a rally, but far from ready to join an action of the sort that you are defining. Perhaps you have a different estimate, or perhaps you see what I see, but it doesn't matter to you that much. In any case, that's where I'm coming from. As for signing our name to our opinions, it's just a way to be held accountable for what we say, good, bad or indifferent. Unless, of course, there's some relevant personal security issue, then 'nom de guerre's' are fine.


Rate this comment
Re: Report on the 1st meeting for the March 20th Midwest Regional Anti-War Protest
by DC
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
22 Jan 2004
Wait --
What unions are you talking about? You've "heard"...from who? I can point to a list of DOZENS of Arab and Muslim groups that want the demand for an end to the Israeli occupation (and whose combined membership represents a *very* large segment of people) who are willing to walk out if that demand isn't a part of March 20.


Who, *specifically* can you name as a group that will refuse to join in? The labor bureaucracy are bad on the issue, it's true (just look at Sweeney). But, as I recall, the mainstream labor bureaucracy hasn't done much against the war to begin with--in fact, they've done everything to cut the left-wing of labor activists OUT of the anti-war organizing. Hoffa supported the war, Sweeney pulled a "Support the troops line" once the war started...jeezus, are these the people we're worried about?

I believe that we'll be able to win significant portions of the labor activist community to support the demand for an end to Israel's occupation, and those are really the folks that matter.

Next, you'll be arguing that the demo has to call for "anybody but Bush" in order not to alienate people.

What nonsense. Arrogant nonsense too, since you seem to think that people aren't smart enough to be able change their minds on this issue.