Meanwhile, at the state capitol in St. Paul some 17,000 people showed up at a rally to "Support Our Troops." While that rally was billed as "neither pro-war or antiwar" the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported that it had "moments that were fervently pro-war." These included "Prevent Terrorism! Bomb Saddam" signs, heckling of Democratic Party politicians who didn’t show up, and repeated chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!" The paper reported that a Muslim speaker at the rally, N. Ruby Zigrino, received a hostile reception. According to the Star-Tribune, "She was initially cheered when she said she supports ‘ousting a tyrant regime.’ But she then read passages from the Qur’an, suggested that a new Marshall Plan will be needed in Iraq, and said administration officials should study foreign-policy failures to avoid repeating them. Her listeners responded with boos and shouts of ‘Screw Muslims!’ ‘Screw the Qur’an!’ and ‘Go home’."

Students Against War, one of many student peace groups, circulated a call to show up at the capitol with signs to say that "Supporting our troops means bringing them home."

A photographer who covered both events stopped by the Militant table and said that she saw a dozen or so antiwar protesters who were completely surrounded by a hostile, threatening crowd, many of them drunk. She said the police intervened and told the antiwar protesters to leave. Fortunately there were no reports of injuries. This is a good lesson in the importance of judging the relationship of forces, and how not to win political space.

Mark Dayton, the Democratic Party senator, was billed as a speaker at the "Support Our Troops" rally. He didn’t show citing previous commitments, and was booed by the crowd.

Dayton, who is a heir to the Dayton family fortune, is known as a liberal, progressive critic of the Bush administration’s policy toward Iraq. Last week the papers reported that Dayton complained that the Senate had spent over 100 hours debating a single judicial appointment, but not one minute discussing the issue of the war. This week Dayton said that the time for debate and discussion had ended and we should unite behind "our" troops.

Bill Sheer
St. Paul, Minnesota  
 

Anti-French chauvinism
What great coverage of Washington’s war drive! In Sam Manuel’s article in the March 24 issue, he mentions the use of the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" in reference to the French on the TV show The Simpsons. This is not a new, war-drive related slur. The episode goes back a while. Another episode, one of their Halloween extravaganzas, entitled "The Homega Man," featured a meeting of the French cabinet where all the ministers had pronounced frog throats and grunted like frogs.

The undercurrent of anti-French chauvinism in U.S. popular culture goes way back. The reactionary demonstrations this past week in front of the French consulate in New York, where people dumped French liquor and carried placards with slogans like "Remember Normandy," are simply the first organized signs in the streets of such incipient fascist chauvinism that unite "we Americans" against the "weak" and "degenerate" states of the world who just happen to be increasingly sharp competitors against the U.S. ruling class.

The Simpsons incidents just go to show that there is nothing inherently progressive about social or political humor in capitalist culture. Usually quite the opposite!

Keep up the splendid work!

Jay Rothermel
Parma, Ohio  
 

Stop U.S. aid to Israel!
"Israeli murder of Rachel Corrie--U.S. aid is the story!" picketers chanted as they gathered in front of the U.S. Courthouse in Los Angeles on March 18 as part of coordinated protests in various U.S. cities. Two days earlier, Corrie was fatally crushed as she urged an Israeli bulldozer demolishing a Palestinian home in the Gaza Strip to stop. Other popular chants included "Not a penny, not a dime! Israel out of Palestine!" and "Bush ordered, Sharon obeyed--Only through U.S. aid!"

Barry Schier
Los Angeles, California  
 

Can workers prevent war?
The Militant recently republished a resolution adopted by the party’s founding convention on "The political situation and the tasks of the party," from The Founding of the Socialist Workers Party. It says, "If the working class is unable to prevent the outbreak of war, and the United States enters directly into it, the SWP stands pledged to the traditional position of revolutionary Marxism. It will utilize the crisis of capitalist rule engendered by the war to prosecute the class struggle with the utmost intransigence, to strengthen the independent labor and revolutionary movements."

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2003/mar03/030315/026n2mun.php?origen= index.html. You can read here how 16 MILLION people went on strike last Friday in SPAIN. Is this an example of the working class attempting to prevent war?

Secondly, is it enough to explain the sudden rush to war?

P.S. Hundreds of thousands are turning out into the streets here in Mexico City at every opportunity, January, February, and March. I recently learned that there are two competing coalitions in the U.S. who are initiating these actions, but the streets are full, regardless of whoever may have issued the call.

Nevin Siders
Mexico City, Mexico
 

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of interest to working people.

Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home