SOCIAL JUSTICE ORGANIZING AND THE CHURCH [And Religion, Tribalism, And Socialism]  [And With A 12/31/01   Follow-Up -  Hunter Gray]  UP DATE  4/03/05

http://hunterbear.org/rochester.htm

___________________________________________________________________________________________

THOUGHTS ON IOWA: INEVITABLE SUNLIGHT  [HUNTER BEAR  JANUARY 4 2008]  MUCH REPRINTED

 

 

JANUARY 8 2008: [HUNTER BEAR]  FOR BACKGROUND ON THIS SITUATION, SEE

http://hunterbear.org/duel_in_the_shadows.htm

At this point, all of the aforementioned indications of external monitoring
of our computer system are continuing in an obviously discernible fashion.
In addition, there have been, in the past few weeks, clear indications of
external tampering with our postal mail -- in a fashion quite reminiscent of
the problems we faced for several years after our arrival here at Pocatello,
Idaho in 1997.  Here is a clear example:

A good friend, Mohawk, Professor Brian Rice of Winnipeg, Manitoba e-mailed
me before this just past Christmas, asking if I knew where my book -- 
Jackson, Mississippi -- could be found.  He wanted a copy.  He's a fine
friend so, as soon as I got his message, I indicated via e-mail we were
air-mailing him a copy as a gift that very day:  December 19 2007.

Eldri mailed it at mid-day on that date at our usual branch post office: Air Mail/Par Avion -- with the
usual green customs tag properly completed.  She was told the book would
likely reach its destination in a week or so.  [It's worth noting that the
Canadian postal system has a fine reputation.]

"Hi Hunter,

The book just came in. I can't wait to read it. The mail must have been
slow.

Thanks again,

Brian

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

AND ON THE OBAMA / CLINTON CAMPAIGN  [HUNTER GRAY / HUNTER BEAR]  JANUARY 9 2008
 

 

Reading the MSNBC page this morning, I note this assessment: ". . .whites and women helped Hillary Rodham Clinton to a popular-vote victory while blacks overwhelmingly backed Barack Obama in Nevada’s Democratic presidential caucuses."  It appears, that in that context, a substantial number of Hispanic voters are also involved.  Obama did very well among all Afro-Americans, women included. [In the Clinton tally, white women were obviously a big stat in Nevada -- though a fair number supported Obama.]

 

[Obama did, of course, trump Hillary a bit on the Nevada delegate count.]

 

"Racial inhibitions" [and outright racism]  and narrow feminism can be, and obviously are, big hurdles in this contemporary country.

 

But I do think Obama continues to have a very good shot indeed at the Presidency.  It  does, however, strike me that, among other things, his campaign is going to have to, with whatever finesse, point out that, given Bill Clinton's behavior in New Hampshire and Nevada -- and his own projected conduct beyond -- Clinton the man sees Clinton the woman as his surrogate.  And I think the Obama campaign is going to have to outline, in at least essential detail, the whole sweep of defamation being spawned by Bill Clinton and his operatives -- and counter that vigorously.

 

Since Bill Clinton is functioning in this Daley-like fashion, the Obama folks need some hard-hitting truth squads -- and very much so at critical points just-before-the-voting days.  If I had been a Dartmouth student, or casino worker, when he showed up at the last minute to shabbily undercut Obama support, you can bet I and my gathered buddies and fellow-workers would have confronted him in dramatic fashion.  We did that a few times at Arizona State University a long time ago.

 

And obviously, the Obama forces are going to have to work out effective approaches to as many white women and Hispanics as they can -- while functioning solidly with their other active and potential constituencies.

 

In my own opinion, and as I've previously noted, I don't see Obama as The Millennium.  But he does stand well above all of the other mainline candidates -- and I think his positive potential is most substantial.  Even as far as this has gone, he has displayed a high level of personal courage [given the dangerous atmosphere in this country re any major figure "of color"] -- and he is giving Great Witness to the critical cause of bona fide racial egalitarianism.

 

Yours, Hunter Gray [Hunter Bear]

__________________________________________________________________________

 

A FEW THOUGHTS ON AN EARLY SNAKE RIVER COUNTRY MORNING  [HUNTER BEAR - FEBRUARY 3 2008]

Been mulling over a few things. Some scattered thoughts:

A couple of days ago, we had a spirited. but generally amiable, discussion on Redbadbear which wound up, quickly, focusing on FDR and the Democratic Party. It was lively -- but didn't necessarily alter anyone's stand on all of that. [Norla Antinoro and Edward Pickersgill captured the discussion for the lively My Town and, if interested, one can see that colloquy at http://www.mytown.ca/nutshell/ ] While aware of the deep flaws in the Roosevelt administration, I remain one of those who, on balance, is quite friendly to the role of FDR [and Eleanor.] I was growing up in those very tough times and I remember them very well. With the onset of U.S. entrance into the War, much of the New Deal faded -- WPA and CCC et al. -- since unemployment dropped drastically in the context of the domestic war effort. But much of the New Deal continued and, however battered, still does.

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 [and comparable legislation a bit later which focused on Oklahoma] -- all of this stemming from the long and tortured and often sanguinary history of a Federal "Indian policy" designed to put Native tribes and cultures out of business and out of existence to facilitate corporate seizure of Native lands/resources -- marked a very basic reversal of those horrific polices: stressed the importance of supporting Native people and tribal nations and tribal cultures and Indian lands and resources. The notable Indian Commissioner during the IRA etc. epoch was John Collier, a protégé of Eleanor Roosevelt. Those "Indian New Deal" reforms exist into our current times -- as the Native struggle continues.

But this is not an effort to resurrect our late FDR mini-hassle.

The basic issue in that RBB interchange did not really involve the Roosevelts as much as it did the nature and character of the Democratic Party -- and, implicitly, under the surface of the back-and-forth, the perennial question for "radicals", "How should one relate to the current electoral situation -- especially at the Presidential level?"

I think it's clear to anyone who reads my posts that, for a number of reasons, I'm in the Obama camp. [ It looks like a majority of Idaho Democrats are at this point as well.] I have voted and not infrequently for what I've viewed as sensible and honorable "third party" positions. But not this time -- at least as things stand now. [Of course, if Hillary and Bill take the Demo nomination, I'll have to go up into the hills and commune-for-direction with our several good and helpful Spirits.]

While I certainly don't think that anyone with an ounce of honesty could deny the consistently negative role played by corporate capitalism, and its effects on, say, the Democratic Party and other institutions, we are presently in the midst of one of the very worst eras ever undergone by the people of this country and the world. When I was the featured speaker at the annual 2005 Truman Day dinner, held at Idaho Falls and covering a good bit of adjoining turf, I began with the sentence, "This the worst national administration any of us can recall -- and I'm 71 years old" -- I wasn't giving away a rare, golden secret. Almost a month ago, following Iowa, I wrote in part ["Inevitable Sunlight"]:

"It wasn't too long ago, historically speaking, that people like many of
us had to fight to survive at a Woolworth lunch counter.

We see the tremendous influx of young people into the Obama -- and, to a
substantial extent, into the Edwards bailiwick as well -- as a damn
realistic harbinger of a better future and an ultimate promise of an
even better one.

JFK's election was never seen by many of us as any great millennium.
But, fueled by many younger people and others of similar inclination, it
reflected the profound discontent and frustration that had festered in
the "dismal '50s." The election of '60 ushered in a rapidly growing
atmosphere of Realistic Hope.

Movement picked up -- and up -- and People Wanted More -- and More.
They pushed and More came.

It's always been my experience that, when folks start winning on good
and tangible fronts, they shoot higher -- and higher. The Kennedys et
al.[and the System in general] were pressured from the grassroots For
More -- and More. And a fair amount of More did indeed come.

There is always a place for Us Radicals -- especially if we try to avoid
the intricate theology of ideological nit-picking and its consequent
schisms and falling-away and, even more fundamentally, alienation from
the grassroots.

Whether times are lean or times are flush, it's up to Us to keep the
Vision high. Whatever happens in 2008 and beyond, we all have our jobs
to do -- as we, via our hearts and minds, see fit:

Organize -- That remains Genesis. Always and Forever."

In my opinion, American [U.S.] radicals who are oblivious to, or even sharply critical of, the rapidly growing grassroots movement within and around the Obama campaign are missing the Winds of History. These are "big things" that greatly transcend the personality of any individual -- even Obama, who I certainly feel has substantial potential. Long after this campaign has run its course -- for relative "better" or worse -- the fact remains that for the first time in decades vast numbers of younger people -- and many oldsters as well -- will have been sparked and stoked into good fire. Some will fade away -- but a great many will remain in an least some sort of activist mode. If what constitutes an "American Left" ignores this, it runs the great risk of a retreat into meaningless monasticism. People have to make their own decisions -- e.g., Obama or "third party" or otherwise -- but don't ignore or attack the tremendous phenomenon presently underway, and building.

And much, much good indeed can and will come of this Wave as History travels its eternal River. It's a very long and winding trail to Beulah Land but Humanity will get there, some way and somehow.

And then, as Humanity always does, It will continue to go on from there.

Yours, Hunter Gray [Hunter Bear]

_______________________________________________________________________

JYRI KOKKONEN [FINLAND]

As a protagonist in the FDR discussion to which Hunter refers, I want to agree with at least part of what Hunter says in this post.  If the Obama mobilization continues, it would indeed be a major mistake to ignore it.  I in fact helped instigate a discussion of exactly this point in the peace group I am active in.

This, of course, leaves open the question of how one relates to it.  In terms of the Kennedy (smaller, I think) mobilization of 1960, I would add the historical note that the spark point beyond which the movements of the 60s became a reasonably sure thing preceded it, being no later than the February 1960 sit-in in Greensboro NC, which was then relatively early in the election campaigns.  The issue is whether one has a better effect by rushing into the campaign activities--and I have always found them remarkably limiting since much revolves around the candidate--or by relating in friendly fashion to the campaign folks by inviting them to be attendees at movement events.  This is not a passive activity--it involves seeking out the young campaigners and inviting them to peace demos or talks or whatever.

In the current moment, this will be facilitated by the fact that any reasonably movement-like formation will have members who are part of the Obama campaign and folks like me who think of it as supporting war and other disasters in spite of the wishes of many campaigners.

best
sam

______________________________________________________________________________

EDWARD PICKERSGILL:

Picked this up and placed it at http://www.mytown.ca/hunter/ and am
expecting Norla will do the same for this coming week's We! magazine.

Edward

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

HUNTER BEAR TO CORNET JOYCE FOLLOWING THE LATTER'S  SCATTER-GUN [FIGURATIVELY]  POLITICAL SHOT:

 

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! The last time I saw such a volley of nine buckshot ["OO"], Cornet, I was an eleven year old firing double-ought buckshot with my sawed-off single-barrel twelve gauge into a small clump of brush -- in order to get a rabbit which had run for cover.

But more to the point. Our Woolworth sit-in at Jackson in 1963 was the most violently attacked and the most generally dramatic affair of its kind in that entire decade -- which, of course, was replete with non-violent demonstrations [and violent efforts to suppress]. It was also, since it went on for three hours, the most televised, photographed, and otherwise reported of the sit-ins. Even before it was over, it was traveling 'round the world.

And at least a fair amount of "our" footage [along with much else from other Southern Movement episodes] was later viewed by appropriate House and Senate committees as they moved toward the successful passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

http://hunterbear.org/Woolworth%20Sitin%20Jackson.htm

And by the way, I got the poor rabbit.

Cordially, Hunter [Hunter Bear]

 

_________________________________________________________________________

CORNET JOYCE:

 

 

All in a comradely and for the Christians among us, brotherly spirit,
Hunter. But you know that.

The nonviolent actions of the 60s were, of course, at the confluence
of technology and institutional development which allowed them to be
filmed and taped but also shown to the public. Perhaps U-tube now
approximates the role the networks filled in those days, but the
institutions we relied upon then are in the hands of barbarians today.
CJ

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

LOIS CHAFFEE:

From what I'm seeing in New York, and reading on the internet, there does not seem to be any danger of ignoring the Obama effect.  He is catching fire among young people who showed no interest in saving our poor country, and that's terrific by any standard. I keep reading about the sociological studies that show longterm, usually lifelong loyalty to the party that attracts individuals' first votes.  It was true for me.  Plus the media loves him, along with their perennial favorite, John McCain.

However, another phenomenon seems to be attracting no particular interest and is sometimes even denigrated in the mass media and in this forum.  It is that Hillary Clinton has attracted the interest and support of working women, especially single mothers without college education.  Across a thirty-year age range, which makes them an even larger cohort than youth ages 18-30.  This is another group that has not been politically active in the past, and whose loyalty is likely to be permanent once awakened. It's easy and quite accepted to sneer at these voters, from Bill Kristol up the food chain to the progressive blogs.  But the growing consensus for change bears watching - all of it.  There's more happening in this country than Obama-Oprah mass rallies.
 
Regards, Lois

 

________________________________________________________________________________________

HORIZONS:  WIDE AND FAR [STUDENT ACTIVISM]  HUNTER GRAY/HUNTER BEAR -- FEBRUARY 4 2008

 

 

NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR:

 

I sent  the two foregoing posts -- Snake River Thoughts and Horizons -- to the SNCC List [among others] and received a nice note from Joyce Ladner, a former  Tougaloo College student of mine and colleague in the Mississippi civil rights struggle. In our subsequent exchange of notes, I also indicated that I much appreciated a recent and very long phone call from her sister, Dorie, also a former Tougaloo student and also a colleague in the Magnolia campaigns. 

 

Joyce immediately sent me this most encouraging message:

 

 She was so excited when she called and told me about your conversation.  She said you sound fantastic!!!

 

MARY ANN HALL WINTERS:

 

 

First, I think the Obama people have many good reasons to be pleased and proud at the nation-wide outcome, and I think the future augers well for Barack.  Idaho Democrats went 80% for Obama.  The final tally of those who came to our gathering was 1456 -- breaking local caucus records. [Attendance in 2004 was 422].  Several of us from our family got there, relatively early [we thought], but things,  already pretty full at the Idaho State ballroom, had already been moved to the larger auditorium. [In time, yet another room was opened in an extension sense.]  The line was the longest I've seen in a very long time, and it was obvious immediately that the cold and somewhat snowy weather had discouraged no one.  This is Eastern Idaho, heavily LDS, and with a strong organized labor base for the Democrats [UP railroad center, phosphate mining and refining etc] and generally considered pretty Democratic. It was a stronghold of the liberal senator [ousted in '80 by the Reagan wave], Frank Church.

 

The ISU ballroom was packed -- soon, standing room only.  The Obama "side" vastly outnumbered the Clinton camp -- and featured, I should add, many women indeed and many young people.  But there were plenty of others on the Obama side as well.  The crowd -- and that's almost an understatement -- was universally amiable, many folks knew others, there was an enormous amount of cheering, clapping, even yelling -- at various points.  Garb was informal, often Western. Outwardly, things seemed chaotic -- I recalled the old Army saw, "Organized confusion." But things were orderly enough and the structures of organization, first rather dim, surfaced in such a fashion that matters proceeded -- with a few rough procedural jiggles and jags -- in a fairly timely fashion.  At no point did anyone seem devoid of enthusiasm.  It was truly a fascinating sight.

 

[The Republicans in Idaho will hold a conventional primary in May.  That, I'm sure, will be well-dressed generally, orderly, maybe dull -- at least compared to the rather raucous affair of last night.]

 

Idaho is a heavily Anglo [white] state.  There is a very, very small African American population, more Hispanics [mostly Mexican in background] but still a very distinct minority.  There are substantial local groups of Native Americans, mostly residing on reservations -- but definitely a statistical minority.  The Clinton group, from what I could see, had little minority participation -- and, while there may have been a few, I saw no African Americans in that much smaller body.  Sitting in front of us were two Black women and, adjoining Eldri was a very elderly white woman whose pro-Obama position was occasionally manifested with surprising energy.

 

There was a small contingent of Edwards people.  If Edwards had not dropped out, he would have done respectably -- but the night would have still been Obama's. 

 

The Idaho Democratic Party has a long and traditional grassroots populist position: Labor, small farmers and ranchers, more recently significant college and university people, many people with solid environmental concerns.  And it also represents a deserved wariness of Eastern business and related interests: e.g., mining [mostly now gone], lumbering, big banks, railroads, land speculators -- and  political machines from Back East. That populist tradition welcomes constructive government involvement and regulation on behalf of people.  Obama is rightly seen in Demo circles as an honorable and open and people-sensitive person.  The Clintons are not viewed as that. [ And the Clintons have a long history of hostility toward gun owners -- and Idaho is for sure a hunting state.]

 

And the War[s] is certainly an issue.  Obama is seen as the most dependable force for an end to that/those -- and a creative and constructive force for rationality in the international context.  Idaho Dems are wary of the Clintons when it comes to international adventuring.

 

Idaho remains, in many ways, dominated by Republicans -- a process that began in 1980 and was in part spurred by the anti-gun campaigns of the Clintons.  But it has never been deeply so.  In the mid-90s, Larry Echohawk, a well known Native attorney, served as state AG.  He almost won the gubernatorial race shortly before we came here.  Even in recent times, there've been Demo governors.  And now, there are cracks in the Republican "hold."

 

The great scene last night may not please those to prefer to watch, in an ostensibly supercilious fashion, from a lofty distance and denounce the whole U.S. electoral process as a "snare and a delusion."  As I have noted, we ourselves have on occasion supported responsible third party endeavors.  But the stakes at this juncture -- among them, life and death for many -- are now drawn starkly in this country -- and in many parts of the world now directly affected by the U.S.  Beyond that, what we saw last night in this small and still rather isolated Rocky Mountain state, was one hell of a  vigorous expression of direct grassroots democracy.

 

Yours, Hunter [Hunter Bear]

__________________________________________________

AMOS CHILINDA: [ZAMBIA AND GREAT BRITAIN]

We stayed late last night watching the proceedings on CNN and to say it was interesting would be an understatement. Thanks for your background write-up. It adds some perspective to the whole thing. It was, AWESOME and we can't wait for the next caucuses. Some enthralling drama indeed.

As I am typing this mail, Mimie is chatting away with her mom, Mutale, on the phone. And that immediately reminds me; how is Maria by the way? 
 

Amos George Chilinda

[The Chilindas are the in-laws of our grandson/son, Thomas Gray Salter, who is married to Mimie.  H. ]

____________________________________________________________________________________________

JOHN SOLBACH AND KANSAS:

Note by Hunter Bear:

 

This is a short note from a cousin of mine -- from  my Anglo mother's side -- giving a succinct breakdown of the caucus situation in the Lawrence, Kansas setting.  John Solbach is a lawyer -- and active on behalf of labor, involved with veterans' rights, and  often a Democratic state legislator. 

 

H. [or J.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: jsbachlw

To: hunterbadbear@hunterbear.org

Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:18 PM

Subject: Re: An Idaho Caucus [massive, rip-roaring

 

John, Good to hear of the Bannock County Idaho Democratic Caucus. The scene here in Douglas county Kansas was similar in many respects. At our (one of three) site 1300+ showed up at the cavernous "Abe and Jake's Landing" which had a posted capacity of 720, spilling over to nearby Liberty hall. . . Obama = 80% +; Hillary = 17%+.

Stay well. John M. Solbach

____________________________________________________________________________________________
 

MARY  ANN HALL WINTERS:

Mr. Salter,

I had a hunch when I awakened this morning and learned that Obama (had to go to bed @ 11:30p because of work) had won Idaho, that we would be hearing from you.

My older daughter , Alicia, was so surprised because "  Do black people live in Idaho ?"

I responded that I was surprised in a way because I, too, didn't think that there were any minorities with the exception of Native Americans in Idaho . I immediately added that I wasn't surprised on the other hand because John Salter lives in Idaho (smile).

This entire process/ Super Tuesday brought back so many memories from our Civil Rights days @ Tougaloo , trying to get blacks to register to vote, etc. and your leadership being  an inspiration to us students.

Have to run because I'm at work . Will write again later.

 

WWW,

Mary Ann

_________________________________________________________________

JOYCE LADNER:

Fascinating.  Could it really be that we are no longer guided by our racial predispositions?  I surely hope so.  Medgar [Evers] would be so proud.

 

Joyce

 

Thanks, Joyce.  Yes indeed, we are making progress on the racial "color blind" front.  And Obama's campaign, among all of its other positive effects, is certainly assisting in that -- mightily.  And you are right:  Medgar would be very proud!

 

Our very best to you and to Dorie -

 

As Ever, Hunter or John or Whatever

______________________________________________________________________

MAINE --  AND SOMETHING ELSE AS WELL [MSNBC]   HUNTER BEAR -- FEBRUARY 10 2008

We were very pleased to see all the Barack Obama victories. Long, long ago I spent some time in the Nebraska sand-hills [Eldri grew up mostly at Newman Grove] and I've spoken in Nebraska many times over all of these years. And Peter [Mack] is a key editor at Lincoln Journal Star. I've twice spent considerable time in Washington State. The first time I was a loner kid barely into his twenties, fascinated by Seattle and Tacoma; and the second time, Eldri and our offspring [two at that point] were in Seattle for a year. I've always liked the Pacific Northwest [to which Idaho is often regionally attached.] And I have more than a few cousins in central and northern Maine, American Indians through-and-through, who I am pretty sure indeed voted for Obama. I felt especially good seeing the Maine victory.

And then I got the latest Portside offerings, mostly reprints these days -- containing a long attack on MSNBC by Jamison Foser [of whom I know nothing] under the aegis of something called "Media Matters." It's a downright nit-picky and scurrilous attack on almost all of the men associated with MSNBC reportage and analysis: Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Tim Russert, David Shuster, Tucker Carlson. [No newswomen, of which MSNBC has a number on board, were singled out. ] It basically boiled down to yet another "politically correct" witch-hunt -- motivated by the perception of the "hunters" that the foregoing male staff were occasionally critical of -- who else but, Hillary. It isn't difficult at all to see the hand of the Clintons operating from their favorite habitat, Shadow Land. The Clintons have never had a beef with CNN which, as early as the mid-1990s, was widely referred to in the West and the adjoining Northern Plains [and probably elsewhere], as the Clinton News Network.

Well, I rarely watch CNN [though Eldri and I do like the maverick Jack Cafferty.] But we have for years watched MSNBC with great regularity. For mainline Amercan media, it's remarkably independent -- all of their staff, male and female. During this period when my physical activity has become -- at least for the time -- limited, I've watched it consistently for hours on end. And no, to its great credit, its staff doesn't cave and genuflect to the more extreme dimensions of "political correctness". In a nutshell, its staff strikes me and Eldri as honorable, sharp with good analyses, and likeable. And they are relaxed, humorous. Of course, we disagree with them now and then but, for mainline media, we find ourselves generally agreeing.

You can see the piece just posted by Portside at:
http://www.portside.org/

We here, of course, support Obama. [We have done the third party thing on a number of occasions and will certainly once against at some point.] And on Obama I wrote this the other day to a good friend:

I really do think the Obama campaign is generating positive forces that will go much further than simply it -- into many critical dimensions above and beyond the Presidency. I think Obama, himself, is head and shoulders over the other mainline candidates in his positive potential -- and refreshing after unbroken decades of mediocrity and ostensible "conservatism." I'm obviously hopeful that what's being generated may be the nonviolent explosive that opens up new, rich veins of ore. [H.]

Yours, Hunter Gray [Hunter Bear]

AND JOYCE LADNER COMMENTS:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  Dorie and I watch MSNBC quite a lot.  The one exception is what's his name who comes on at 9pm, and whom we don't think is very knowledgeable.  I am re-reading your book on the Jackson Boycott.  Such a good anatomy of protest and social change.  Hi to Eldri.

Joyce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

AMERICAN STUDENTS, POLITICAL DIVERSITY, AND THE PLURALISTIC UNIVERSE [FROM THE REDBADBEAR DISCUSSION] -- HUNTER GRAY/HUNTER BEAR [FEBRUARY 12 2008]

 

In the Brian Zepp Jamieson column, we find this:

 

"The YAF aren't people you would want for neighbors. Most are pampered and useless, vicious little preppies with brittle steel in them. Cheerleaders for the occupation and torture, you won't find many vets among them. They have better things to do. Like pimp out Ann Coulter"

 

_________________________

 

To be polite about it, I think this, with the exception of the figurative shot at Ann Coulter, is "bull-shooting."

 

In addition to social justice organizing  -- hither and yon -- since I was barely into my twenties [and I could go even further back, stirring up trouble through every one of my K-12 years], I have also done a reasonably respectable amount of college and university teaching in a wide variety of settings around the country.  [And, even while I've taught, I have also consistently  organized on various fronts.]  And I've encountered all sorts of people in all sorts of places -- and that includes thousands of students of all sorts of political persuasions in my generally very large classes -- some of them in the 200 enrollment range. [Haven't ever met any "fascist" students, however.].

 

And, as I've always noted, I've liked all -- all -- of the students I've taught.  Since, no matter the size of the class, I've always stirred up discussion --  making it clear at the onset of the course and at various times thereafter, that free speech prevails where I'm concerned, I have heard all sorts of student perspectives [but, again, no "fascists"] and many of those views could be termed very conservative.  Interestingly, many of those became , [as with many other students]-- even as we kept our respective principles quite intact -- good friends.  And, in due course, a fair number of the conservative kids modified their positions.  Whatever -- but I have never seen any of my students as fitting the surreal stereotype carried in the Zepp column. In my recent piece, Forces and Faces Along the Trail, I mention an "encounter" with YAF kids at Colorado State back in late '64 which turned out just fine for all of us.  If I'd had more time, I am sure that some of us -- YAF kids, liberal kids, and others -- would have hit a bar or two to shoot the breeze.  I always find it occasionally helpful when I'm meeting conservatives of Whatever Age, to mention my life-long Life Membership in NRA and my empathy with hunting [and self-defense] conventional firearms. 

 

All of the students I've known have a naturally independent and maverick streak, always.  They certainly are not "fascists" nor Gletkins [the robotic second generation "Bolshevik" inquisitor in Arthur Koestler's novel, Darkness at Noon.]

 

I know very well that "Zepp" isn't in this bag but his ridiculous characterization of YAFers et al. carries the ring of the empty wannabe blustering of certain elements in the authoritarian Left.

 

Ann Coulter is an obvious crackpot.  The other day, I forwarded my Anglo cousin's report on the Democratic caucus at Lawrence, Kansas.  A mutual cousin of his and mine --  an older guy who has always respected my various positions and who has praised them in print -- has a good wife who has become somewhat entranced by the Coulter thing.  Well, that's her view.  None of us are stewing around on that one.

 

Yours for the Pluralistic Universe --

 

Hunter [Hunter Bear]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM EDWARD PICKERSGILL:

And your commentary has been duly affixed to Bryan's column at
http://www.mytown.ca/zepp/

Edward

____________________________________________________________________

 

DAVID MCREYNOLDS:

I've lost all track of YAF but do remember that many (many) years ago they thought they should
use a "sit in" at the old War Resisters League office when it was downtown here in Manhattan.

It wasn't clear to use what they had in mind, but we got them chairs to sit in and made sure they
had water. And otherwise left them alone until, feeling foolish, they finally left.

Ann Coulter always looks as if she was on speed (which I think very possibly she is) and the
way she tosses her hair back and forth I can't help but wonder if she has bugs in it that she
is trying to shake out. She is indeed a nut. The problem is she has an audience which doesn't
realize this.

Peace,
David McReynolds
NYC

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SIGNIFICANT PIECES OF POLITICAL DISCUSSION FROM THE REDBADBEAR LIST [FEBRUARY 14  2008]

 

SAM FRIEDMAN WRITES:

 

I have myself been quite unimpressed by the lack of response from many quarters to my raising the issue of how to attract the youth who are rallying for Obama or for Clinton to other activities that will go on beyond the campaigns, and that might have some hope of building the pressures that might conceivably make Obama do something useful as President.  As I have phrased this before, this can be done by those who are working for those campaigns together with those of us who are not.

As for Hunter's being unimpressed with "ostensibly Militant Talk:"  This is one case where we clearly fall on different sides of the razor blade of life.  I have heard messages very similar to Hunter's on many occasions. Those supporting the Dems proclaimed much the same talk of urgency, the country is in danger from the right, etc. etc. when Johnson ran against Goldwater, Humphrey against Nixon, and every 4 years since as well.  Sometimes the argument is in terms of the poorest folk being so needy that the crumbs from the table will make a big difference for them--and how dare you stand against that.

And when the Dems do get elected, they attack our movements, the tighten the belts, they make war on Vietnamese, Dominicans, Iraqis etc etc.

At some point, one has to say enough, I am not playing this game anymore. With me, that point came after 1964 when I voted for Johnson. 

This does not mean that I disrespect those who work for Obama (and I certainly try to avoid the disrespectful language some Obama supporters have used on this list of late towards people who disagree with them.) I disagree with the Obama supporters, but I work with some of them very closely in my anti-war group. I even work with them to figure out how to relate to the kids mobilizing around the campaign. And many other issues.

Stepping back for a moment, I would add something that I think is very important. Ever since I have been politically active, in the USA and, I am told, many other countries, many on the left have real trouble behaving respectfully to people on their left.  I have seen it lead to vicious physical attacks that send people to the hospital on occasion.  It is one of the behavior patterns that keeps us all weak.  I might add that I have almost never seen anyone from the left attacking those a tad to their right physically--though I have certainly seen some serious disrespect of that kind on occasion. 

For those who are supporting the Democratic candidate du jour, I want to ask you to think seriously about the need to respect those of us who do not.  We are not going away.  When I am saying this, I do not mean to suggest that you not criticize or attack our views--anymore than we will step back from criticizing yours. But let us do this with the understanding that (for those of you who are are on the left), we will need to work together on many things over the years to come. To do this requires minimizing rancor and preventing the feuds that disrespect leads to.

best
sam

 

 

RESPONSE BY HUNTER BEAR:

 

Sam:

 

We [and others] have been over this too many times to agree on anything in this particular context save for the fact that we are obviously not disposed to agree.  Edward and Norla can use these brief comments of mine if they see fit.

 

I'll be blunt -- always from the perspective of a good friend.  I think you and those who stand back and shoot at the Obama crusade, however politely [in your case] and not so politely in the case of some others [not much on our RBB list, however] are missing History at this point.  I was in the South for six critical years and I know damn well who made, for example, the civil rights breakthroughs:  countless grassroots people and organizers -- who put their lives on the line.  Those struggles and those sacrifices led directly to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the '65 Voting Rights Act -- and much, much more -- and we were damn glad to see all of those come into reality. This all came about by People -- "There go my people," said Martin King, "and I have to run to catch up." [We've always been pleased that photos and film portions of our long and much publicized Jackson Woolworth Sit-In, truly the most violently attacked of any of those particular types of demonstrations in the '60s, were shown to key House and Senate Committees to help build Congressional support for what became the '64 Act.]  I was privileged by History to participate in many turbulent episodes in those turbulent and sanguinary years -- and most of us had few stars in our eyes when it came to the Kennedys, Johnson, et al. [And I can cite much personally in the overall River of Change in which I was involved well before I "went South" and a hell of a lot in the many years that have followed.

 

And, for a long time, I've felt the Winds of Movement within and around -- and ahead -- of the Obama campaign.  And much of that stems, in addition to the legacy of the Grand Old Struggles, to these immediate past years of protest characterizing  this hideous period through which we are now passing. [I think, by the way, that at this point, the current and powerful force of the electoral political thrust precludes much substantive "recruitment of the young" to any [other than very general] Left perspectives.  That will come later [but most likely in new organizational forms] as the non-violent force of this social explosive, high and deep, and inherently visionary opens up rich veins of ore -- vastly more from every perspective than the Democratic Party of whatever stripe could or would ever achieve. [But we must always remember:  young people have their own minds, do their own thinking, and much value their own self-determination.]

 

And, again, I certainly see Barack Obama and his vigorous effort as a vastly needed initial step at the political level -- at this critical point in our individual, national, and global history.  We always have the challenge of maintaining one eye on the Vision over the Mountains and the other on the shorter range "pork chop" necessities in the day-to-day lives of human beings. You may shoot at FDR but I remember [in my case, as a not especially "deprived" kid], the latter days of the Dust Bowl and its migrant refugees and, to this day, there are still many of us that never see a sage jack-rabbit without thinking, "Hoover Beef."

 

And, as we go along, we always have to -- whoever we are and however we function in the literally endless human justice struggle for a full measure of liberty, bread-and-butter and spiritual well-being -- be fully alert and damn well aware of the dangers of co-optation.

 

And that means keeping our primary footing on the solid ground of our Movement[s] and within our individual self-determination.

 

Now and Forever.

 

And on that, I am sure we agree -- my genuinely good friend.

 

In [basic] Solidarity, Always --

 

Hunter [Hunter Bear]

____________________________________________________________

 

BILL BUCKLEY  [HUNTER GRAY/HUNTER BEAR  FEBRUARY 29 2008]

 

I join the many who'll miss Bill Buckley.  While our points of specific disagreement -- with one particular dimension of exception -- would be as numerous as leaves on an aspen tree, he was a consistently direct and honest guy who said what he meant and said it directly.

 

And just about as importantly, Buckley knew how to use the English language magnificently -- and with great effectiveness.  A hell of a lot of writers should take a leaf from him -- including some of those on Left lists [not any of ours] whose descent into crass vulgarity in an apparent effort to promote a "militant" stance is sometimes reminiscent of junior high discussions [with cigarettes] under the Rio de Flag bridge during the lunch break at our nearby school.

 

Buckley could use The Language as Art -- and  in a splendidly and intricately adversarial fashion.  Very wickedly. I like a person who shoots that way.

 

The one area of my agreement with Bill Buckley is that -- in the fashion of a steadfast traditional American conservative -- he rarely took his primary eye from the importance of individual and intra-societal liberty.  One could disagree with some of his interpretations in that context, but never fault his enduring consistency.

 

And he always knew how to use something often sorely missing in contemporary discussional circles in the United States: finely toned humor.

 

If the Afterlife situational setting needs any challenge, I know someone who began that process just as soon as he floated into the presumed Paradise. 

 

"They" -- whoever they are -- may well ship him back to us, pronto.

 

Then we could have lunch together.  I'd like that.

 

Hunter [Hunter Bear]

 

MORE ON BUCKLEY [HUNTER BEAR]:

 

Friendly critics of the quick draw mode might want to re-read my post on Buckley with a bit more care -- especially this [and particularly its second line]:

"The one area of my agreement with Bill Buckley is that -- in the fashion of a steadfast traditional American conservative -- he rarely took his primary eye from the importance of individual and intra-societal liberty. One could disagree with some of his interpretations in that context, but never fault his enduring consistency."

I think much of the contemporary United States Left, and the Liberals, and the Right would all benefit from careful and, ultimately, effective reflection on the critical need for Liberty in any decent human society.

And -- not pointing any fingers at RBB folk -- I think all of those foregoing categories would profit enormously from increased skills -- and arts -- in the realm of articulation and good taste.

Best, H.

AND EVEN MORE FROM HUNTER BEAR:

 

Interesting comment, Cornet, and thanks for the articulate expression of interest -- which characterizes our RBB. However, in my opinion, your shot has gone a bit awry. The glib term, "cryptofascist" strikes me as about as muddily confused as the "Stalinoid" tag so enthusiastically utilized by a few "conservative socialists" on the now-virtually-gone ASDnet list. I never met Buckley nor Vidal. I will concede that Bill Buckley [from what I saw and read] was a snob -- but a complex one who exhibited depth and wit and humor, and was thus frequently quite likeable. And, in the last analysis, he had a libertarian soul which, despite our respective and considerable differences in manifestation, did give us some common ground. [Buckley founded National Review and wrote for it; I've written much for labor and radical journals. But I've often taken a look at National Review -- and I suspect Buckley more than occasionally looked into the Left.] On the other hand, Vidal, also a snob, was somehow -- at least to me -- devoid of appealing qualities and thus not very likeable at all. Very, very early on in my personal development, I found myself able to disagree and battle -- often with the greatest vigor and breadth and even ferocity -- with various people who, vis-a-vis their particular individual gifts, I could also, simultaneously, find likeable. And, again speaking personally, I have met very, very few people -- likeable or not -- from whom I learned nothing useful.

Anyway, just my view. Perhaps others would care to join us.

Best, H.

 

AND THE GOOD EDWARD PICKERSGILL IS CAPTURING ALL OF THIS AND MORE ON THE TOPIC AT MY TOWN:

 

http://www.mytown.ca/hunter/

__________________________________________________

SHEILA MICHAELS:

 

I wuv you, Hunter Bear!

S h e i l a

On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:50 AM, Hunter Gray wrote:

And just about as importantly, Buckley knew how to use the English language magnificently -- and with great effectiveness. A hell of a lot of writers should take a leaf from him -- including some of those on Left lists [not any of ours] whose descent into crass vulgarity in an apparent effort to promote a "militant" stance is sometimes reminiscent of junior high discussions [with cigarettes] under the Rio de Flag bridge during the lunch break at our nearby school.

HUNTER BEAR'S RESPONSE:

 

Thanks, Sheila! I much like that -- and I think I'm going to put it on the three lists in our little "system."

I should add that there's nothing like a Buckley -- or a Mencken -- to stir up Liberals and the Left and lots of others as well! They keep/kept us on our toes. The self-defined and sober-sided Left of these days should learn to smile and laugh occasionally -- or at least to grin -- in the midst of the current combat. For anyone interested, the good Edward Pickersgill has captured much of the Redbadbear discussion on all of this on My Town
http://www.mytown.ca/hunter/

And a note on Bears: Josie [our youngest daughter] and her Cameron went to an interesting auction at Shelley, Idaho the other day. They returned with a very fine and rather old hard-wood and well-carved figure of a standing male Grizzly bear. It's a birthday present to me. More than a foot and a half high, nicely proportionate and thus chunky and rather heavy, with only a very few black paint dashes to illustrate certain body lines, he now resides on my nearby dresser, looking at me solemnly. His eyes -- old glass mini-balls in an implicitly friendly and open face -- are quite appealing.

Gives me strength. Glad he's on Our Side.

All best and Solidarity

Hunter Bear

_______________________________________

AND A NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR ON THE AMERICAN LEFT [MARCH 2  2008]

 

Thanks, Norla, for your thoughtfulness in passing along George Thomas' comments which find considerable resonance within me. I've been a "man of the left" consistently for more than half a century -- and it's painful to see what passes for an organized left in this country [or even the rather amorphous versions], after this almost a decade of strong social concern and activism in many grassroots quarters, sitting humorlessly and sanctimoniously in relative insular isolation, trapped in rote slogans and occasionally by the further out versions of "political correctness." [I am not talking about "good taste" which, along with a reasonably lucid command of the English language -- hell, any language -- I strongly endorse.] Verbal militancy alone is emptier than an old canteen in Death Valley -- if it's not joined by outreach organizing.-- and that to-and-with the people process is certainly enhanced by hard work and at least judicious humor. I was commenting yesterday to my good spouse that the Greenwich Village dancing scenes in the fine film, Reds, [probably true to life during that creative era -- and thereafter for a good spell], are most likely pretty lacking in what's become the New Old Left. [Christ, even the Southern Movement facing foes on every side, could laugh and joke and party on occasion.] And, as I've endeavored to note, the Buckleys and the Menckens keep us alert, on our toes -- whether or not we find likeable human qualities in those folk. At least they knew/know the value of well-honed humor and some of their outlandish comments [quite possibly to draw reaction from the sober-sides of Our Side], shouldn't drive us into horrified frenzies. And Our Side, in its not infrequent factional modes, tosses about comments like "fascist", "Stalinist," "Trot" etc. in a cavalier fashion reminiscent of middle schoolers throwing things at one another when the teacher is briefly absent. That said, there are certainly those on, say, our Redbadbear list and in many other settings at one level or another or several levels, who, in their respective locales, are in the trenches of positive social change. But there aren't enough of them and of those we have, they need to grin and laugh -- however sardonically. That's an important quality in the Save the World Business -- in both dimensions: the day-to-day "pork chop" struggle and the longer range visionary campaign to reduce the power of corporate capitalism and, hopefully, end it in favor of social arrangements that provide for a full measure of libertarian and material well-being.

I again thank Brother Thomas and Sister Norla [and some others].

In Solidarity [whatever the engendered headaches]

Hunter [Hunter Bear]

________________________________________________________________

AND NOW AGAIN:  AMERICAN POLITICS -- WHAT OF AND WHERE TO?  [HUNTER GRAY  MARCH 23  2008]

This RBB discussion, in my opinion at least and as I've noted in a quite recent earlier post, has become surreal in a rather personal fashion.  I'm quite willing to see this brief cloud as inadvertent and I daresay that none of us would be pleased even with the fraying of the generally good interpersonal relationships that characterize our rambunctious little discussion list -- good relations that are often reflected in congenial off-list correspondence.  Sam, indeed, has personally visited us [three years ago] right here in Idaho.

Clarence Darrow at least once remarked that "People live lives of quiet desperation" [and I always like to match that with the affirmative conclusion provided by William James in his essay, "Is Life Worth Living?"]  But these are not good times for Left organizational radicals in this country.  It'll soon be a decade since the first of the very promising large scale demonstrations against the World Trade Organization marked the end of a very long Death Valley Trek epoch that characterized radical life since the mid-1970s.  But despite the challenges presented by the conservative [basically Reaganesque] Clinton administration and the Horrors initiated and carried by the present one, coupled with the quite commendable anti-war grassroots activities that have ensued now for years, Left organizations in this country, although there have been brief "flush" periods, have gotten smaller.

And Left folk are, in a phrase, frustrated as all Hell.

And, of course, so are a vast number of the American people.  The genuine excitement characterizing tremendous support for the Obama Campaign/Movement speaks volumes about all of that -- and, in addition to feeling that Obama offers far more than the other presidential candidates re the Iraq War and more -- I'm at least even more strongly convinced that this grassroots excitement propelling and surrounding Obama is indicative of a phenomenon that transcends his hard-fought endeavor and will certainly continue in broadly promising fashion following the November elections.

I'm not sure what this bodes for the "Older Left" and the "Older New Left."  My strong hunch is that History on these shores at least stands at a point similar -- in the rough or essential sense -- to 1960.  If so, Big Things lie ahead in the realm of activism. On the other hand, though, I don't see a sweeping revolution at any time soon and the obviously and predominately much younger people aren't going to buy in, at least substantially, to that -- at least not in the foreseeable future.  And They are going to want to make their own decisions sans outside manipulation, even that with the most altruistic of motives.

I do hold to my strong conviction that the Struggle is a step-by-step Mountain climb -- and, when one range is mounted, others will beckon.  It's a Forever process.

Those of us associated with general or specific Left views have every good reason to stick to our guns.  We can certainly make positive contributions in such realms as bona fide organizing and, whatever the limited circ of our journals, meaningful writing. And we have, if we're willing to abandon our factional and interpersonal biases and the more rigid dimensions of theory, a great deal of wisdom and solid advice to give to those who are now entering the door that opens into the Save the World Business.  Not all of the people who get into that stay -- many do some good things, then fall away.  But there are always those who for sure Keep On, Keeping On.

Here's a quote from Darkness at Noon:

As Ivanov [the soon-to-be killed himself secret police inquisitor of his old friend
Rubashov] put it so very well in Darkness at Noon:

" Satan . . .is thin, ascetic and a fanatical devotee of logic.  He reads
Machiavelli, Ignatius of Loyola, Marx and Hegel;  he is cold and unmerciful
to mankind, out of a kind of mathematical mercifulness . . .don't imagine
that he grinds his teeth and spits fire in his fury.  He shrugs his
shoulders;  he is thin and ascetic;  he has seen many weaken and creep out
of his ranks with pompous pretexts. . ."

But we are not, of course, a Satan-complex in the remotest sense and our motives, I trust, are pretty faithfully altruistic. Not everyone who joins The Struggle will remain.  But many will -- old hands and new.

So, while Darrow made an excellent point, I fall out with James and underscore his great optimism.  He and Darrow kept going and so must we.

And so we will.  Always and Forever.  And, in our own way, Together.

[And now, for myself and Trotskyists and Workers World and More in Dixie, see this.  Some have seen it, of course, but in the context of our quite recent RBB exchanges, it's worth another look:

Personal Reminiscence:

North Carolina and Jesse Helms [Hunter Gray, 8/22/01]

PUBLISHED IN THE SOCIALIST  [JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003]

http://hunterbear.org/personal_reminiscence.htm

_______________________________________________________________________

 

DAVID MCREYNOLDS:

 

I agree with Hunter that the organized left - new, old, whatever - is living on hard times. I also think the Obama candidacy may

open the door for much in the way of a push "to the left", and I say this fully aware that Obama is not  a socialist, he will not

cut economic and military aid to Israel, he will not push for a single payer health insurance program, he will not call for nuclear

disarmament.

 

We are the ones who have to push for those things.

 

Part of the problem with the left (and these are very brief notes) is that the "models" are broken. The Leninist movement

in all its various forms - the Communist Party, the various Trotskyist organizations, the Maoist groups - all fall short of

seeing the need to build an American movement modeled on our culture, not on the brilliance of a Russian living and working

in the unique conditions of Czarist Russia. (I'd say exactly the same thing about those such as myself who are committed

to nonviolence and the teachings of Gandhi - if we do not realize that Gandhi, also, was a product of "time and place" we

will fail). I'm inclined to say the only problem with the Leninist-inspired movements is that so many adherents think they

might possibly be Lenin.

 

In New York I'm starting some very informal discussions with a range of views including those who belong to groups I

don't agree with in whole or part - CP, CCDS, DSA, SP, etc. - in order that we can, without trying to "convert one another"

or try yet one more time to "refound the Left", to establish some personal ties and trust.

 

Beyond that we can only work in our own communities, try to involve younger people in discussions in which we need to be

willing to listen much more than to try to impose our own ideology.

 

Fraternally,

David McReynolds

NYC

 

AND HUNTER RESPONDS:

 

Good indeed to see your thoughts, David, with which I  -- obviously -- quite agree.  I am taking the liberty of forwarding this little package of good seed to several lists and some individuals where I'm certain that at least some soil will prove fertile.

 

Like a fair number of us still -- despite the vicissitudes of many decades -- you are for sure a Long Distance Runner.  We both got into all of this in a grim epoch, you at the beginning of the '50s, I in the middle of that decade.  Those years could be lonely.

 

I always remember a kid and fellow student from NYC with whom I chanced to visit at Arizona State [Tempe] in late 1957.  I mentioned that I was a Wobbly [ for some newer readers, Industrial Workers of the World.]

 

He warmed immediately.  "You Are!" he exclaimed happily.  "I'm a YPSL!"

 

And that was the first time I'd really heard of the Young Peoples' Socialist League.  He, btw, was very helpful when we organized, a few months later, the broad-based and successful movement at the university to greatly improve the on-campus food and dorm situation.

 

Your "project" sounds truly solid, David.  Its timely nature needs no elaboration.  And, among other gifts, you have a rare sense of finely honed humor that "breaks ice", helps free people from their sober-sided image.

 

But you are, of course, very  serious. Keep us posted!

 

In Solidarity, Hunter

_______________________________________________

THOUGHT BY HUNTER BEAR:  AS THE SUN RISES [APRIL 3 2008]

Looks pretty certain that Obama will take the Democratic nomination -- and, very likely, secure the Presidency. This family is certainly glad.

Immediately following the Iowa caucuses, I wrote a very short piece which observed that "It wasn't so long ago that we had to fight to survive at a Woolworth lunch counter." If this comment mystifies anyone, check out our literal Woolworth sit-in at Jackson in May, 1963.
http://hunterbear.org/Woolworth%20Sitin%20Jackson.htm

The implications of this shift in United States race relations should be obvious -- along with the fact that we all still have a long way to go in that context. And we have a very long way to go on many fronts. But Obama obviously offers a number of solid strides in the direction of a better nation -- and even a better world -- more so than any major U.S. candidate has for a vastly long time.

And it's been very clear that he's engendered tremendous enthusiasm -- especially with younger people. The Obama campaign, early on, took on the qualities of "Movement" -- a transcendent phenomenon that is far greater than simply a segmental electoral political effort. That "people energy / people force" augers well for the positive future of all of us. That energy/force will go very far ahead indeed.

The amorality [a relatively gentle term under the circumstances] of the Clintons was obvious to some of us in the 1990s. After recent events "on the trail," no one should have a single sunny illusion about Them. Nor, given the history of McCarthyism and its neo-associate, "guilt by association," no one should be surprised that every "witchy thing" from Fox News to the Clinton camp, is trying -- in an increasingly shrill and desperate fashion -- to whip up "concern" about the "Reverend Wright" situation. The Reverend's controversial comments were taken out of context. His church, thousands strong, has a long history of solid social justice work in the toughest parts of Chicago. And that particular church is, of course, a key component of the United Church of Christ [formed via merger of the Disciples of Christ and the Congregational church], and has a vastly long history of grappling constructively with all sorts of social justice challenges. [It, and its foregoing two denominational roots, have been among the oldest supporters of Tougaloo College -- during the very roughest days of the Mississippi Movement.]

If I left every Catholic church where I heard something from the pulpit I didn't like, well -- I'd run out of churches.

And in a maelstrom like Chicago, you often find yourself working with interesting allies. As I've noted before, I directed large-scale grassroots organization on the South/Southwest Side of that city from 1969 well into 1973. We -- a fine staff of about two dozen committed field workers and a multitude of dedicated community people [mostly Black, some Puerto Rican, some Chicano, and a few whites] -- organized 300 block clubs and related groups, fought the Daley machine and the Republicans, and much more to win a fine array of grassroots victories. [One of our very key staffers was Bette Ann Poole, of Mississippi, who had been with us in the initial picket of the Woolworth store in downtown Jackson on December 12 1962 when we launched the Jackson Boycott [soon to become the massive Jackson Movement.]

Early on, I bailed out from jail several leaders of the [Black] Disciples youth gang -- who had been quite unjustly arrested during a literal police assault on Black and Puerto Rican elementary school children. From that point on, the Disciples provided important protection for us and we all worked together most constructively in securing critically-needed grassroots victories. One of those came early on, when our "alliance" overthrew a Daley alderman, replacing him with Anna Langford, a Black independent Democrat and an attorney.

I'm not surprised at the "church baiting" -- from the reactionaries. It'll fade -- save for those who'd vote McCain anyway. But it seems strange to me that, "in these times," some hard-shell leftists spend far more time picking at Obama than, say, McCain or Fox News -- or the Clintons. Perhaps they're jealous, but in any case these sectarians are "missing History." They've missed History before.

Anyway, as I look out from my Idaho Window, I do feel quite optimistic. And it isn't just the good Sun itself rising above the mountains to our east. That's bringing Light and Warmth. But it's also the harbinger of some very good things a'coming.

Keep fighting,

Hunter [Hunter Bear]

_________________________________________________________________

A RESPONSE BY HUNTER BEAR [APRIL 3 2008]

Cornet:

Your sarcasm is [for the moment] overlooked from my perspective. But I do have this to ask, "What in the hell are you for?" And I ask that "with all due respect" [as some of my Republican friends in North Dakota used to preface their critiques of my positions while we shot the breeze at the Westward Ho.] Sam is sketching out the geo/social/political map of a New World; I, ever the prosaic organizer, am focused mainly on the here-and-now [though not oblivious at all to longer range Vision.]

You may recall the final scenes in the original version of that fine flick, Inherit the Wind. There, at the end of the [Scopes] trial, the Darrow figure [Spencer Tracy] who has become tired of the barbs levied against his populist-turned-fundamentalist adversary, William Jennings Bryan ,by the Mencken figure [Gene Kelly], comments to the latter, "The trouble with you is that you've never believed in anything." And, of course, he went on to say of Bryan, "A giant once lived in that body."

Well, I'm sure you do believe in things, Cornet, and well beyond your own sphere. But tell me, what do you think we-all should be doing at this point in the human travail -- and where do we find the long trail to the summit of the Big Rock Candy Mountain?

As Ever, H

_________________________________________________________________

REMINISCENCE:  AN INTERESTING -- IF UNUSUAL -- LITTLE GATHERING AT TUCSON, 1955  [HUNTER BEAR  APRIL 3 2008]

 

A bit of reminiscence:

Fairly recently arrived at the University of Arizona for Fall term, 1955, a friend from an English comp class invited me to a cocktail gathering at his parents' home. [His father was a journalism prof and his mother from a well to do Louisiana family.] When I got there, I found an interesting group. My friend, his sister, and his parents were there -- it was their home, of course -- but I also found Huey Long's sister, Frank Brophy Jr., and another friend of mine, Bill Haugh. Bill was the son of the Republican whip in the state senate [actually not a bad guy personally], but Bill was a really hang-loose kid -- pretty liberal for the times and place. Frank Brophy, Jr., a law student, was the son of the owner of the extensive central/southern [Arizona] Bank of Douglas chain. The senior Brophy was a right-winger who, in the summer of 1917, had assisted his father and a large entourage of vigilantes in deporting 1200 striking IWW and Mine-Mill copper miners in the infamous Bisbee strike-breaking campaign. In fact, I had written an angry letter to Frank Jr's dad just a very few months before in response to some of his reminiscence which had appeared in the Arizona Republic newspaper. [I sent a copy to the newspaper which, not surprisingly, didn't print it.] But Frank, Jr., who turned out to be pretty liberal in a positive sense, knew my name immediately. "Dad liked your letter," he told me cordially, "because he likes people who fight back." [Later in time, I heard a favorable personal appraisal of the senior Brophy from a good friend of his, Ammon Hennacy, the Catholic anarchist -- who occasionally visited Arizona and who was well acquainted with our Flagstaff newspaper editor.] Anyway, it was a great little gathering with plenty of good liquor, much fascinating political back-and-forth, and repeated challenges to a fencing duel by Bill Haugh [we all passed on that one]. But there was one exception. Huey Long's sister drank nothing, sat solemnly amidst the frivolity -- looking like she'd smiled only once as a baby. It wasn't generational. She just wasn't any fun.

So, I don't know, Cornet, if I could have ever voted for Huey -- with a sober-sided sis like that.

On the other hand, my maternal grandmother, daughter of a leading Kansas Populist spokesperson, always spoke very fondly of "Mr Bryan." I'm sure I would have gone with him.

Yours, H