Dismantling Peace Movement Myths, by Frida Berrigan

[Echo In Light]

Dismantling Peace Movement Myths
by Frida Berrigan
A speech for Peace Action Maine on April 26th, 2008

* * *

....So, what I am trying to say is: I did not want to risk winging it. This moment in time contains so much hope and possibility and so much death and destruction. These are not easy times and they are not getting easier — and so I thought that I would take on some of the myths that burden, complicate and undermine our peace movements.

We have internalized some of these myths pretty deeply. We even reinforce them with one another. So, I thought it might be a valuable exercise to spend some time together dismantling a few of them.

What follows is my high subjective (and certainly incomplete) compilation of the myths of the peace movement.

*In the 1960s, the peace movement was so much more powerful and so much cooler than we are.
*There are no young people active in the peace movement. Don’t they care?
*We are marginalized and we are not having an impact.
*We’re not smart enough to oppose the war.
*All we need to do is get the right person in the White House and then they’ll enact our solutions.

Does any of this sound familiar? This is what I hear from brothers and sisters over and over again. Now, these myths are not equal — some are bigger than others. And some have a kernel of truth (which is why they are myths and not lies) but cumulatively this constant bombardment is a real bummer.

So, I’m saying they are not true — I’m saying that there are young people, and we are having an impact, and that no one person in any position of power is going to offer any answer automatically or just because they promised they would.

I’m saying we are the ones we have been waiting for, that we are creating the alternative. If that is what we are doing, not just going through some exercise of opposition, some knee-jerk resistance or recalcitrance, then we have a lot of work ahead of us — and need to take the work more seriously, and ourselves less so.

And that starts with dismantling myths.

Continued:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/07/8793/

[ananda]

1. I don't think it's such a myth at all.

The peace movement exists, sort of..
but it's virtually inefficient and
ineffective.

Sue

[Echo In Light]

2. Quote:

"We are still small. But, we speak for the majority of Americans every time we go into the streets. And it leads to this interesting sense of accountability. I am not just here for me. I am here for many people who cannot be here because they are working or they are afraid or they don’t know this is happening — but would be happy if they did."

[ellenfl]

3. no, it's virtually not reported. eom

[malaise]

11. Bingo n/t

[elizfeelinggreat]

5. the media

portrays it that way but this article is disputing that portrayal.

I agree with the article.

[leftofcool]

4. Sorry, Frida

Your new peace movement is a bust. In the 60's there was a draft. Kids have no incentive to get involved in any movement for peace. They have not had to sacrifice. The few that are involved are ineffective. Get about 2 million to march on DC and I might believe you.

[elizfeelinggreat]

6. that's looking in the wrong direction

The marches didn't work and people have found other ways to move toward peace, the movement has not stopped.

[acmavm]

7. The marches didn't work? What marches are you talking about?

The ones that scared this administration so badly they had to throw large numbers of people in jail? Or back in the day? Because back when we were hitting the streets it had a tremendous impact. It's one of the reasons we're not fighting in Viet Nam to this day.

What other ways have these up and comers developed that are working so well? Who's their leader, the Invisible Man?

[elizfeelinggreat]

12. These marches

"The February 15, 2003 anti-war protest was a coordinated day of protests across the world against the imminent invasion of Iraq. Millions of people protested in approximately 800 cities around the world. According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of the 15th and 16th; other estimates range from eight million to thirty million."

Do you remember the pictures of protesters versus the attention given to it by the media when this happened? I DO. It wasn't the right venue to get results and people realized that rather quickly. It's the media not covering America's anti-war sentiment that wasn't working, don't blame those who are against the war for not fighting hard enough. I think it's ridiculous to compare this time and place to the Vietnam protests because of this very reason - our society expresses dissent differently now and perhaps you aren't seeing it because of the horrendous bullying (by politicians, media and rabid right wingers) that goes on but it's there.

One leader for the anti-war movement was Cindy Sheehan, remember her? And if you think she made no difference in the collective mindset then I think you weren't paying attention.

And I don't remember the Vietnam war marches stopping that war in its tracks the way you seem to; there was a GRADUAL change in the way the country viewed the war - very similar to what is happening now.

[Echo In Light]

13. This:

"It varies. Take, for example, the invasion of Iraq. The invasion was virtually announced in September 2002, along with the National Security Strategy. That was followed by a massive government/media propaganda campaign that quickly drove large parts of US opinion completely off the international spectrum. A majority came to believe that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the US, that he was responsible for the crimes of September 11 2001 and was planning new atrocities in cooperation with Al Qaeda, etc. Those beliefs were closely correlated with support for the invasion, not surprisingly. They were known at once to be completely false, but it did not matter: lies proclaimed loudly and incessantly become a Higher Truth. Nevertheless, the propaganda campaign was only partially successful. Protest against the invasion reached levels beyond anything in the history of Europe or the United States. When the US attacked South Vietnam in 1962 -- as it did, uncontroversially -- there was no protest at all. Protest did not begin to reach a serious level for 4-5 years; by then South Vietnam, the main target of the US attack, had been virtually destroyed, and the aggression had spread to most of Indochina. For the first time in the history of the West, there was enormous protest against the invasion of Iraq even before the war was officially declared. That is only one of many examples of how power systems have lost control of good parts of the population. The worldwide global justice movements, which are also unprecedented, are another striking example. And there are many more." ~ Chomsky

[acmavm]

14. There were two things that ended Viet Nam. Marches (which

generally turned into a free-for-all) and outright demonstrations which involved taking over college campus building, city halls, whatever. And no one said it stopped anything in its TRACKS dearie.It took time all right. But at the rate we're going now, Iraq will never end. So you can take your memory and your snarfy tone and try to impress someone else.

And as far as right now, nobody's doing a damn thing. Zero, zip, nada, zilch, nothing. So, whereas yes, the country was in an uproar back then during Viet Nam, the people made themselves heard. They brought an end to the war and to the Nixon Administration. This didn't happen because the powers that be wanted to end the war. They most certainly did not. And they knew that it couldn't be won. Just like this war, it cannot be won. People have been trying to conquer the Middle East for thousands of years. This is not new.

[elizfeelinggreat]

15. I'm "snarfy"?

LOL.

You should try appreciating efforts made instead of putting down Democrats so often.

Nobody's doing a damn thing, huh? So what are YOU doing?

[acmavm]

16. Right now wasting my time on you. But that's officially over as of

now.

[elizfeelinggreat]

17. not surprising from

Someone who Thinks So Much of Himself.

Boy will I miss you calling me names! :eyes:

[leftofcool]

9. Didn't work? You have to be kidding

[flashl]

10. The search for Peace

Then ...

The rebellion within the U.S. armed forces that contributed to the U.S. defeat in Vietnam has been largely erased from public memory.

It has been replaced with the "spat-on myth"--that the antiwar movement was preoccupied with spitting on returning veterans and denying them the glory of the ticker-tape parades that marked the end of the Second World War. This lie, widely circulated by media pundits and Hollywood films like Rambo, is turned on its head by David Cortright's Soldiers In Revolt, newly republished with a postscript by Cortright and a new introduction by historian Howard Zinn.

Soldiers In Revolt provides ammunition for antiwar activists today by documenting the massive breadth of the Vietnam antiwar movement among active-duty personnel--and the necessary bond that developed between military service members and civilian activists.

...

ALL THIS flies in the face of today's common wisdom that antiwar activists should hide or "dumb down" their political views for fear of scaring people in the military away from the movement.

The Soldiers' Revolt in Vietnam

And, now:

Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

Iraq and Afghanistan featured testimony from U.S. veterans who served in those occupations, giving an accurate account of what is really happening day in and day out, on the ground.

...

In addition, panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists gave context to the testimony. These panels covered everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans' health benefits and support.

[flashl]

8. "We live in the United States of America" ...

"— a deeply nostalgic and deeply ahistorical nation saddled with a case of amnesia that approaches pathology."