Moulitsas (aka kos) quoting Al Giordan quoting kos
More on the book.
Moulitsas (aka kos) quoting Al Giordano quoting kos :
More on the book.
Moulitsas (aka kos) quoting Al Giordano quoting kos :
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Can dailykos founder help the 911 Truth Movement?
- Thread starter metamars
- Start date
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
It sounds like a good thread topic and worthy of more discussion.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Not wanting to derail either, and if the mods want to weed out the posts on this and create a new thread I have no problems with that. However, for those that want to see how Apartite in SA really came to an end, try here for a start.
Note the reasons given are:
Most of these things had their roots back well before the US administration turned against SA, the Rand had all but collapsed back in 1985, The National Party and Botha knew in the first years of the 1980's that Apartite was coming to an end, in fact there were even attempts to change things early in the 80's, but the leadership turned back at the last moment each time due to civil unrest. The lost of US support may have been the final straw, but to claim that it was all the US's doing is so far out of the solar system as not to be funny. It does rank right up there with "The US won WW2 single handed."
Note the reasons given are:
- With all the unrest in the country, the government was losing control.
- The economy was getting weaker and weaker due to unrest, strikes, boycotts and economic sanctions. The value of the Rand had dropped significantly, and business leaders were putting pressure on the government to change.
- The NP was losing support to more reactionary conservative white parties, such as the Conservative Party, formed in 1982 by a breakaway from the NP.
- President De Klerk respected Mandela and knew that such was his international and internal profile and popularity that he would be indispensable in any sort of negotiated settlement.
- With the Cold War now over, the government could no longer argue that apartheid was saving the country from communism, a rhetorical device long used by the NP as an excuse for repressive measures.
- The NP and ANC had been meeting in secret. Both were willing to explore the grounds for a negotiated settlement.
- Optimistic NP members naively believed that the ANC would not do well in an election and, moreover, that the NP would win it.
- The more realistic members of the NP hoped that the ANC would share power with them in an interim government.
Most of these things had their roots back well before the US administration turned against SA, the Rand had all but collapsed back in 1985, The National Party and Botha knew in the first years of the 1980's that Apartite was coming to an end, in fact there were even attempts to change things early in the 80's, but the leadership turned back at the last moment each time due to civil unrest. The lost of US support may have been the final straw, but to claim that it was all the US's doing is so far out of the solar system as not to be funny. It does rank right up there with "The US won WW2 single handed."
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 22,350
Kos has succeeded in creating a community, but he has been pretty poor at using his power for anything other than fundraising (although he has been quite good at that). And that's with a group of people who largely agree about a panoply of issues.
The "Truthers" don't agree about anything other than the desire for a new investigation. Arguably, at one point 9-11 Blogger could have been a Kos-like community, but inevitably the individuals can't get along because their theories conflict in too many ways.
The fracturing was inevitable, if you think about it. When a movement is exploding with new members, everybody is happy, we're all on the same team. That was 2005-2006 for the Troofers. But as the movement crested in 2007 and declined in the election year, it quickly became a question of who could grab the largest slice of a shrinking pie, and the knives got a little sharper.
I don't think there's anything for the Troofers to learn from Kos, for the simple reason that Trooferism is in a death spiral and liberalism is not. Writings from Lyndon LaRouche around 1997 might be instructive for the movement, howerver.
The "Truthers" don't agree about anything other than the desire for a new investigation. Arguably, at one point 9-11 Blogger could have been a Kos-like community, but inevitably the individuals can't get along because their theories conflict in too many ways.
The fracturing was inevitable, if you think about it. When a movement is exploding with new members, everybody is happy, we're all on the same team. That was 2005-2006 for the Troofers. But as the movement crested in 2007 and declined in the election year, it quickly became a question of who could grab the largest slice of a shrinking pie, and the knives got a little sharper.
I don't think there's anything for the Troofers to learn from Kos, for the simple reason that Trooferism is in a death spiral and liberalism is not. Writings from Lyndon LaRouche around 1997 might be instructive for the movement, howerver.
Last edited:
One thing that Truthers agree on is that a new investigation is necessary. (OK, well, maybe the only thing.
) Thus, Truthers should have no problem rallying around a 911 Ballot Initiative. The current one has not gotten support from many activists in the NYC city area, and beyond, primarily because of doubts about Les Jamison, including allegations of financial impropriety, which I never heard until a few days ago. Even though the allegations have been public for over a year. See here for more details.At 911blogger.com, I have called for proposals by other activists to take over the current ballot initiative, or, if necessary, start from scratch. Such proposals should have provisions for full transparency of the process, something that's not the case right now. Let's say that this comes to pass, and there is considerably more unity around a particular effort that, in principle, does indeed reflect a near-universal belief in the 911 Truth Movement.
I find it hard to believe that, for a scenario such as this, there's nothing in kos' book that would be of use.
BTW, one reason some people have soured on Jamison is because of his big-tent approach to speakers, including proponents of DEW and nukes.
Another thing that reading kos' book could do is to cause specific groups to re-focus, even if only temporarily. We Are Change has confronted Nancy Pelosi, but as far as I know, haven't don't anything to help Cindy Sheehan defeat her for her seat in the House of Representatives. Is that really a smart thing to do? WAC's 'Code of Conduct' doesn't allow them to support any particular party, but what about a particular candidate? kos' book and familiarity with kos' success in funding candidates who went on to win election, may be just the stimulus to make a little light bulb go off in their minds.*
I certainly hope so. I can't imagine a more futile task than begging Nancy Pelosi to show a trace of ethics and backbone, on a number of issues. It'd be much better to fire her, and if We Are Change doesn't agree, or if WAC thinks that embarrassing Pelosi is better than dumping her, well, I think that's unfortunate.
* I can easily imagine the snark that this sentence will inspire. This is JREF, after all.
milesalpha
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 375
I made no comment on the internal struggle, specifically using the word international. Their contribution was heroic, but largely ineffective.
For those who want an actual understanding of the period (try using wikipedia as a source for a history paper some time and see how far it gets you, far too much revisionist history floating around in there), may I suggest the work of Kathleen Schwartzman and Kristie Taylor who are also apparently foolish enough to believe it was American disinvestment that brought about the end. It's a goofy thought I know but they seem to think that the loss of 5 billion dollars in US investment between 1986 and 1988 had something do do with (by far the most significant drop in foreign investment over any period, US investment actually increased during most of the 1970s, casting some doubt about the effectiveness of that period's anti-apartheid campaigns, new loans stopped in 1984/85). They conclude that little progress was made until the mid 1980s, coinciding with American disinvestment. You might also try Sahadeo Basdeo, or Richard Knight.
Finally, a few thoughts to consider.
From Schwartzman
"If the opposition to apartheid was confined to domestic protest, apartheid might have endured even longer. Bloody and violent protesting had gone on, after all, for decades."
From Knight,
Following the Soweto uprising in 1976, student activity on college and university campuses increased dramatically. Almost every college had one or more organization. Their activities were very public and had an important impact. Students engaged in numerous types of protest such as occupying administrative offices, sit-ins and building shanties – replicas of South African squatter camps. ACOA speakers talked on colleges across the U.S. and in 1979 ACOA started publishing Student Anti-Apartheid Newsletter which reported on the activities on various campuses. ACOA held numerous student conferences and coordinated a series of weeks of action from March 21 (Sharpeville Day) to April 4 (the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.). ACOA also played an important role talking students though issues such as how to respond to the Sullivan Principles. Student protests surged again after 1984 and the number of colleges and universities at least partially divesting jumped from 53 prior to April 1985 to 128 by February 1987 to 155 by August 1988. There were independent anti-apartheid committees/organizations at most of these campuses.
The SA governor of the Reserve Bank commented in 1987 that the lack of apartheid reforms affected business and consumer confidence. (apparently he didn't think much progress was being made up until then.)
The South African president of the Chamber of Mines who, in 1990, said, "I feel strongly that the counter to U.S. disinvestment threats lies in South Africa's internal constitutional and general reform process". (now why didn't he mention any other country?)
A simple question, if the US does not disinvest, does Apartheid carry on...Tutu thought so (highly critical of the US until they did so), Mandela thought so, these historians and political scientists thought so. For how long, who knows but it is pretty clear that progress was made ONLY when the US brought pressure to bear.
Apologies that some of this information is only available through JSTOR. This is a very complex subject and that's where I tend to head for such things. I am afraid Wikipedia did nothing to change my mind.
For those who want an actual understanding of the period (try using wikipedia as a source for a history paper some time and see how far it gets you, far too much revisionist history floating around in there), may I suggest the work of Kathleen Schwartzman and Kristie Taylor who are also apparently foolish enough to believe it was American disinvestment that brought about the end. It's a goofy thought I know but they seem to think that the loss of 5 billion dollars in US investment between 1986 and 1988 had something do do with (by far the most significant drop in foreign investment over any period, US investment actually increased during most of the 1970s, casting some doubt about the effectiveness of that period's anti-apartheid campaigns, new loans stopped in 1984/85). They conclude that little progress was made until the mid 1980s, coinciding with American disinvestment. You might also try Sahadeo Basdeo, or Richard Knight.
Finally, a few thoughts to consider.
From Schwartzman
"If the opposition to apartheid was confined to domestic protest, apartheid might have endured even longer. Bloody and violent protesting had gone on, after all, for decades."
From Knight,
Following the Soweto uprising in 1976, student activity on college and university campuses increased dramatically. Almost every college had one or more organization. Their activities were very public and had an important impact. Students engaged in numerous types of protest such as occupying administrative offices, sit-ins and building shanties – replicas of South African squatter camps. ACOA speakers talked on colleges across the U.S. and in 1979 ACOA started publishing Student Anti-Apartheid Newsletter which reported on the activities on various campuses. ACOA held numerous student conferences and coordinated a series of weeks of action from March 21 (Sharpeville Day) to April 4 (the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.). ACOA also played an important role talking students though issues such as how to respond to the Sullivan Principles. Student protests surged again after 1984 and the number of colleges and universities at least partially divesting jumped from 53 prior to April 1985 to 128 by February 1987 to 155 by August 1988. There were independent anti-apartheid committees/organizations at most of these campuses.
The SA governor of the Reserve Bank commented in 1987 that the lack of apartheid reforms affected business and consumer confidence. (apparently he didn't think much progress was being made up until then.)
The South African president of the Chamber of Mines who, in 1990, said, "I feel strongly that the counter to U.S. disinvestment threats lies in South Africa's internal constitutional and general reform process". (now why didn't he mention any other country?)
A simple question, if the US does not disinvest, does Apartheid carry on...Tutu thought so (highly critical of the US until they did so), Mandela thought so, these historians and political scientists thought so. For how long, who knows but it is pretty clear that progress was made ONLY when the US brought pressure to bear.
Apologies that some of this information is only available through JSTOR. This is a very complex subject and that's where I tend to head for such things. I am afraid Wikipedia did nothing to change my mind.
Agreed.