UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action/Debates

     (Redirected from UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action/Talk)
 InfoInfo
Search:    

This page is for discussing the contents of UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action. Please post information directly about the Walkout to that entry, and meta-conversation about the entry here so that the main entry can be useful for people interested in the event.

  1. May 1's Significance
  2. Walk-Out as a Method
  3. Effectiveness of Multi-Issue Rallies
  4. Immigration
  5. Blocking Roads as an Effective Tactic?

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

May 1's Significance

The Truth about May Day:

Honor the Haymarket Martyrs! Honor Victories of the Working Class!

[WWW]http://www.icl-fi.org
the Real Communists: The Spartacist League

-Preston

Walk-Out as a Method

2007-04-06 07:57:19   I think they are just looking for whatever reason to walk out... —DavidGrundler

I hate to ask, what is the benefit of this event? I don't see the relationship between the proposed actions and how is it to benefit these multifarious causes. Just curious, what is the relationship? Why walk out on that day? do we oppose the university? ~Davidpoole

Effectiveness of Multi-Issue Rallies

2007-04-06 08:09:43   I would assume the purpose is to raise awareness about proposed legislation as is stated above. I do not see why this page was deleted, its completely relevant to Davis. —JimSchwab

I pretty much think every comment above my comment isn't really useful to the discussion, but I'll address a few points before going on. (1) I don't think the use of the word "imperialist" is appropriate. "Industrialist" would be better, and "neoconservative" would probably work best. (2) Capitalism and racism are related. Capitalism inherently accepts inequality in society, and strongly capitalist ideologies allow require a lower class of unskilled laborers. Since changing class is difficult, the historically poor (especially non-whites) continue to be marginalized by society. Racism may be declining, but that doesn't mean it is not a problem.

Okay, here's what we need to do. We need to focus these problems. Right now it seems like a series of unrelated points, but the same people are likely to agree with all of them. The problem is that the government is acting too selfish on several levels. The war in Iraq is a reaction to a perceived threat, rather than an attempt to prevent the causes of war. Government policy seems slanted towards promoting the interests of those in power and their friends (did you know that Enron hand-picked members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission?). Keeping immigrants marginalized keeps wages low. Protecting the environment is bad for business. Paying for other people's health is expensive.

The rest are more subtle, but related. The War on Drugs still existing is primarily still going on because law-enforcement officers and prison guards want to keep their jobs. Ethnic minorities are typically economically disadvantaged, but social programs to make things more equal are too expensive. (Side note: Affirmative Action is immoral, but was the right thing to do 25 years ago — ask me if you care).

America used to be about making the world a better place, and leaving that better place behind for our children. But our national policy is so self-centered that we fear our neighbors, both at home and abroad. This is not our path. Instead of calling for an end to these neoconservative policies, we need to go further. We need to suggest ways to make our society better. Can nationalized health care be better, more equal, and more efficient? You bet! Investment in efficient technology saves money and the environment. And both leave us a better world. We don't want to be reactionaries, we want to be revolutionaries. Don't just react to the war, change the agenda away from the war. Use the rally as a place to popularize new ideas. —BrentLaabs

2007-04-07 09:23:00   For a protest to be effective, it has to focus on a specific issue. This thing sounds like it's targetting a dozen problems at once. —GeoffJohnson

"2007-04-08 10:54:00" i have a few questions about what is on the may day page. first, i'd like to mention that i am one of the people organizing the events. now, as far as what the protest is about, i think i must be misunderstanding something. At the meetings we had people from Davis Students Against War, Students Organizing for Change, and Amnesty International, as well as a few people without any affilitations. Those three specific groups intend to have speakers to talk about the issues they are advocating. We have not talked about speaking on any other issues. Also, each group has agreed that although we are all speaking on the same day, we are not part of some umbrella group, and have not joined together to form some super-activisit organization. I feel, and i assumed that others agreed, that May Day was primarily going to be a day of information and knowledge, with less emphasis on protest. For this reason, i feel that there should be no conflict in having all three groups speaking at the same event. There is nothing wrong with spreading knowledge and sharing information alongside other activists. I personally agree with and support all three groups, but i do not see the harm or difficulty in asking students to take time out of their day to learn about some issues that are occuring not only in their country, but at their school as well. Even if he or she were to only support one topic, it is not too much to ask that they stay and listen to what the other two groups have to say. Maybe i've misunderstood the organization plans, and perhaps this page is unclear about precisely what is going to occur. there are still planning meetings to clear up confusions and finalize plans. I personally apologize for any confusion that this page has incurred, and promise to bring up these debates at the next meeting to try to clear up some points. Additionally, if anyone wishes to participate in the organization of this event, please contact me on the DSAWR page to find out how. As a sidenote, i have to say that im disappointed that some of these debates above this comment have gotten personal and rude. There are many ways to articulate one's argument meaningfully without agression and anger. —KatieDavalos

2007-05-01 12:55:23   I agree about the comment that states this protest takes on too many issues. I would have liked to participate in the event because of the environment and war issues, but when the event was described in my class, the person stated that they were also for helping and protecting illegal immigrants (which I do not agree with). This event might sit well with the liberal/hippie types on campus, but for those of us who are not liberal (I myself am a libertarian), it's much more difficult to march with this crowd. I hope next year, if such an event takes place, they will narrow it down to an event or two that people are not likely to be split on (i.e. only taking on the war, only the environment, only immigration issues, etc). —NatalieMcNear

2007-05-01 18:46:04   When every group is fighting to get their cause recognized, its like they're all fighting against each other for attention. When you band together, you can do a lot more. Besides that, it 'is' all about human rights, and tries to show people that you can't pick and choose who deserves fair treatment and who doesn't. I say good on them for recognizing the power of teamwork. —AllisonEriksen

Immigration

2007-05-01 20:39:56   If you wanna break the law by entering this country illegally at least have enough respect to communicate your feelings in the English language. While we're at it, we should legalize drugs too because they'll enter America anyway! —MehdiKhan

2007-05-01 22:11:42   "No Human is Illegal" is one of the dumbest slogans I have heard in a while. Either you break the law or you don't. Humans aren't legal or illegal, but their actions are. —DavidGrundler

2007-05-02 03:51:46   I would have supported the UC Davis employees, because I think they get screwed for the work they do, and I think Immigrants who come to the U.S. Legally should be entitled to all the rights that a citizen deserves. I did not attend however, because of how these issues mixed with protest of the Iraw War and support of Illegal Immigration. My friend said his class was rudely interrupted by someone quite in favor of Illegal Immigration and it ticked him and his professor off. I also recieved an e-mail prior to this event, from the listserv, "quepasa@ucdavis.edu", that all Hispanic Davis students are defualted placed upon, denouncing the proposed game that DCR wanted to do. That ticked me, because of their insinuation that the game was disrespectful and insensitive to the plight of the Illegal Immigrant. —CarlosOverstreet

(I)t is interesting to read the comments on immigration. I think CatherineFung hit the nail on the head perfectly when she wrote about DavidGrundler argument as "the law is the law." This relates, of course, directly with my first paragraph, but I though I'd take it a bit further here. [wikipedia]Slavoj Žižek is correct when he comments that "we must obey it [the law] not because it is just, nor even beneficial, but simply because it is the law." He continues by saying that "this tautology articulates the vicious circle of its authority, the fact that the last foundation of the Law's authority lies in its process of enunciation" (The Sublime Object of Ideology, p. 37). Here Žižek writes the logic, whether known or not, of Grundler above. He is for changing laws that are not sufficient or old or racists or whatever, but as long as these old, racists laws exist, they should be obeyed. The complete obedience to authority, in what ever form, simply because it is authority is unbelievable. but then again, sometimes people have the desire to be repressed, just as some genuinely desired to live under fascism (Guattari and Deleuze make an interesting argument about this in Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia). Taking Grundler's argument back in time, he could very well be the white obedient person to the law during slave times in the south. extreme? i dont think so. the white, law abiding person would have said something like the following: "well, i dont like slavery, and i think these laws should be changed, but as long as they exist as they do, those run away slaves should be returned to their masters. It is, after all, the law. They are, after all, moving illegally." In this situation the ridiculousness of the argument is oh so apparent. I think that even Grundler would agree. Yet when transferred to the contemporary situation something happens: the person obedient to authority because it is authority recognizes within themselves their own fault, and changes the content of their argument, and retain the same form. and the form is oh so essential here.- josh

Here's my proposal. Seeing as how there is so much inequality between the United States and Mexico, it is not suprising that so many people want to cross the border. If I were suddenly to become a Mexican citizen, it would take me about ten seconds to decide that I was coming up here. These immigrants come up here to feed their families, and to send their money back home. It sounds good for the families of those who come up here, as remittances make sure their families are fed. But can we really afford for all of this money to leave the U.S. economy?

The answer is no. But there is one simple way to solve the problem, keeping economic progress for all Americans and improving the lives of Mexicans. We must simply annex the entire country of Mexico, and join the Estados Unidos de Mexico with the United States of America. They're both called the United States, and should be united!

Now you may be thinking that this would be difficult, but just 140 years ago we managed to take a good third of Mexico, with a much smaller army than we do today. With the tanks, aircraft, and artillery of today, a war against Mexico could be easily won by our modern military. And would they treat us as liberators? You bet! Just think of how many of them want to voyage north of the border to become citizens — what if they could be U.S. citizens just by being at home?

So I urge you, and all of those who are running for President, to seriously consider the annexation of such a wondrous land as Mexico. We could reduce the amount of oil we import, reduce the amount of people crossing our border, protect a much, much smaller southern border, and offer Mexicans what they deserve: The American Dream. Our future is right there, and we have only to walk it together with our southern neighbors. —BrentLaabs

2007-05-03 13:46:05   Why are we arguing about this? We are in America. We got ours. Fuck everyone else. Immigrants today, shit, they should have known better. They should have crossed the border back in the day - when you didn't need a passport because the 17th Century INS were the native Americans and they didn't have guns - suckas! Now let's All go to church and worship a guy put on a cross for committing a crime. Stop quoting history, we should know that law and order is always correct because MIGHT IS RIGHT. Now pardon me while I put my fingers in my ears and ignore your arguments because you are going to use morality and compassion - and doing that is just showing your weakness. —RobRoy

Blocking Roads as an Effective Tactic?

2007-05-01 21:39:26   I don't mind you guys protesting, but your blockage of the Russell/Anderson intersection made probably a thousand people late to class. I had to wait 40 minutes for the bus until the protest cleared. You should be respectful of those who need to get to class, what if someone had a midterm? I hope for the nuisance, you at least accomplished your goal. —PrishaGupta

A somewhat general comment on various ideas floating around on the discussion section of this page. first, to respond to the folks who have written of the "disturbance" to their day, of their tardiness to class and what not. It is striking to me how, although the content of what is said, i.e. that you should take up your grievances by other means, such as talking with the administration, the form is the exact same stuff as, say, white supremacists used during the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s, or conservatives during the early part of the century regarding labor rights and unions. Back then the rhetoric was a bit more blatant: the racism was explicit, and the class bias against working people upfront. But the message is essentially the same: if you have problems, there are institutions that have means of fixing your problems, so dont go out into the streets and disturb anyone. Had they listened to this, the 8 hour work day, 40 hour work week, weekends and the Voting Rights Act would have no meaning today because they wouldnt exist. Fundamentally it is a difference in analysis. Whereas the conservatives of old times (and today), white supremacists and people having a problem with yesterdays march see the current problems as mere aberrations in the system, I see the problems as inherent to the system. It is, thus, not the system which will fix itself, but rather the people at the margins, those most affected by the inequalities built in to the system. And is it for this reason that we must go into the streets.

Secondly, it is interesting to read the comments on immigration. I think CatherineFung hit the nail on the head perfectly when she wrote about DavidGrundler argument as "the law is the law." This relates, of course, directly with my first paragraph, but I though I'd take it a bit further here. [wikipedia]Slavoj Žižek is correct when he comments that "we must obey it [the law] not because it is just, nor even beneficial, but simply because it is the law." He continues by saying that "this tautology articulates the vicious circle of its authority, the fact that the last foundation of the Law's authority lies in its process of enunciation" (The Sublime Object of Ideology, p. 37). Here Žižek writes the logic, whether known or not, of Grundler above. He is for changing laws that are not sufficient or old or racists or whatever, but as long as these old, racists laws exist, they should be obeyed. The complete obedience to authority, in what ever form, simply because it is authority is unbelievable. but then again, sometimes people have the desire to be repressed, just as some genuinely desired to live under fascism (Guattari and Deleuze make an interesting argument about this in Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia). Taking Grundler's argument back in time, he could very well be the white obedient person to the law during slave times in the south. extreme? i dont think so. the white, law abiding person would have said something like the following: "well, i dont like slavery, and i think these laws should be changed, but as long as they exist as they do, those run away slaves should be returned to their masters. It is, after all, the law. They are, after all, moving illegally." In this situation the ridiculousness of the argument is oh so apparent. I think that even Grundler would agree. Yet when transferred to the contemporary situation something happens: the person obedient to authority because it is authority recognizes within themselves their own fault, and changes the content of their argument, and retain the same form. and the form is oh so essential here.- josh

2007-05-02 23:44:09   A question about strategy: Does anyone know why the La Rue/Anderson/Russell intersection was strategically chosen for the sit-in, compared to, say, somewhere on campus (within the jurisdiction of the campus police) or downtown (where more bystanders would have been encountered)? (Anyone's theories are welcome of course, but ideally someone who has actual facts will respond as well.) —AlyssaNelson

2007-04-09 07:41:11   Why is this page getting so much attention? —JimSchwab

Hey all, are there any comments on my recent revisions of the May 1st page? I tried to resolve as many issues as possible. Any suggestions or comments to help me out? Keep in mind that our meeting tomorrow afternoon should also sort things out. Thanks everyone for helping and contributing and caring! —KatieDavalos

Insert non-formatted text here

2007-05-07 09:23:38   I think some of the conversation here is relevant to leave up, not to delete "after the debate is over." What about moving the comments that are clearly linked to the event itself (i.e., not meta-conversation about the structure of the page, or threads that go way off-topic) back to the main Day of Action page (and deleting the now irrelevant comments that were left there)? Or renaming this page? (I don't want to just go ahead and do it if there will be objections or undoings.) —AlyssaNelson

This page was used in an editorial in today's Letter to the Editor in the California Aggie. —SteveOstrowski

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.