The peace movement has never been all White, all straight, all male or any other stereotype

Yearwood notes that people are angry. He then wrongly claims, "And you’re seeing a peace movement now that hasn’t been seen. You’re seeing black and white and brown and yellow, male and female, straight and gay, coming together, because we understand that this is one of the most important -- this is our lunch counter moment for the twenty-first century." Ava: "Get your facts right. Latinos and Latinas have been involved all along -- Aidan Delgado, Camilo Mejia, Fernando Suarez del Solar, Pablo Paredes -- all who didn't just take part in the March for Peace in 2006, they led it, they organized it -- as well as many others. Gays and lesbians have done their part, as have people of all races. This Latina is getting damn sick of someone suffering intense media damage repeatedly distorting the face of the peace movement. Stop the spin, it's insulting." Ava is 100% correct and we do not and will not ever push the lie that the peace movement is or has been universally white, Anglo and straight. We didn't push the lie that students were "apathetic" either. There are enough lies out there without more being added. This community found the lie of student 'apathy' offensive and it's made it very clear that it finds the lie that simplifies a highly diverse peace movement offensive. If you're looking at the peace movement and only seeing White, Anglo and straight, the problem is with you, your media or actions you are electing to take part in.

The above was supposed to run in the September 13th "Iraq snapshot." There is a K limit on how long e-mailed entries can be and to address other things (in this instance the undercount of Iraqis who had died during the illegal war done by Phyllis Bennis and Eric Leaver), C.I. had to pull it. It was noted at The Common Ills that we would address it here. There wasn't time last week.

That was a Thursday and by the time they were speaking in the afternoon (Ava, C.I., Rebecca, Ty, Jess, Jim, Dona and Kat), students were already raising that issue. (One of whom e-mailed us to make sure we didn't forget to cover it this week.)

Yearwood has continued to repeat this false talking point. We've addressed it here before. In fact, we've addressed that nonsense long before Yearwood started repeating it. After he did, we addressed it in "Roundtable" and "2 Books, 20 minutes" and apparently we'll need to keep addressing it since the lie keeps getting repeated. From "Roundtable:"

Ava: I have not only never missed a peace action in my own area, I have regularly traveled to DC and NYC for national actions. Since Pinkney wanted to be a defender of "Brown" people as well as African-Americans, let me put this real simple: Shut the hell up. I'm far from the only Latin face in the peace movement. I don't need his or Yearwood's stereotyping of the movement as a "White" movement. Cedric made the point that minorities in the general public will usually be minorities in movements representing a broad section. That's basic. I've already had to live through the "Students Are Apathetic!" myth that the alternative press and the mainstream media was happy to run with, I'll be damned if I'm going to be robbed and see others robbed of the very real contributions because Yearwood and Pinkney want to lie and claim the peace movement is all White. Maxine Hong-Kingston, Alice Walker, whom Betty was just mentioning, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, Camilo Mejia, Aidan Delgado, Ehren Watada, are famous people of color in the peace movement, but they are far from the only people of color in the peace movement. That the mainstream press has marginalized people of color -- in every way, in every movement -- is not surprising, that alleged defenders want to do the same is disgusting. It needs to be called out. Ty's the only one of us, the core six responsible for this site, who has never said, "Let's drop ___ from the links" before. We were on the road speaking at campuses -- where we saw many of color who are part of the peace movement -- and Ty came over to C.I. and I on Thursday, after one African-American woman spoke loudly against Pinkey's nonsense and said, "I really want to delink from The Black Commentator." He had our full and immediate support. He had that with everyone responsible for this site as they learned about it. Certainly the community was pushing for that as well. It was insulting and it goes against everything we are working for and believe in. Let me add Bob Watada to the list of famous because he's an amazingly strong voice for peace. There are many others but they all get robbed, as do the non-famous, of their earned credit when someone has an axe to grind and wants to repeat lies that the peace movement is universally "White."

From "2 Books, 20 minutes:"

Ava: And if I can grab a moment here to make a point that should be obvious but apparently isn't obvious to all. Aidan Delgado is Latino. He is very much a part of the peace movement and he is very much a visible part of the peace movement. In light of lies that the peace movement is all "White," I think we need to note that.

We're not interested in covering Yearwood. If that wasn't clear before "John Conyers Is No MLK (Betty, Cedric & Ty)" went up, let's make it clear now. C.I. noted Yearwood in the snapshot on the 13th of this month and had to argue with everyone that it was news (Yearwood being assaulted). Betty and Cedric were the last hold outs. C.I. said, "If anyone says 'no,' I won't even mention it. But I do think it's news and I do think it needs to go in." Betty and Cedric agreed and it went in.

That's really it as far as we're concerned. We're sick of the false stereotyping that Yearwood continues to repeat. Whether it's Ava, Cedric, Betty or Ty, or a reader or community member, we're all aware that people of color are damn sick of it. We're also aware, though we're apparently not supposed to talk about it, that a blogger wrote Rebecca with a question and she answered it only to find out that he forwarded her e-mail to Yearwood. No one had Rebecca's permission to forward her e-mail. When Rebecca confronted the blogger with the fact that he had forwarded her e-mail, he denied it. Then he attempted to act as though Rebecca was emotional and crazy. Let's be clear, the e-mail was forwarded and we'll be damn happy to scan a print out of the forward if anyone wants to play dumb.

We mention that because suddenly Rebecca, and other sites in the community, are getting e-mails from Yearwood. Save your time. We don't even open them. We are not interested in highlighting any event you're doing because we are grossly offended that you think you can write to Rebecca and never say, "Hey, about that e-mail of yours I was forwarded, I had nothing to do with that . . ." or anything else. [The nicest explanation is that Yearwood had no involvement in the forwarding.]

It happened.

We have all read the entire exchange between Rebecca and the blogger over this. He refused to answer why he forwarded the e-mail. He responded that Rebecca was attacking him by accusing him of fowarding her. This isn't a baseless accusation. Her e-mail was forwarded.

We have no idea why. How could we when the blogger refused to answer Rebecca's question? When he denied fowarding her e-mail?

But the worst case scenario is that someone wanted to have a few 'chuckles' at Rebecca's expense. A blogger shows up all "Hey, cool site blah blah blah, got a question blah blah blah" and Rebecca replied briefly only to learn her reply was being circulated online.

Trust us, Rebecca didn't attack him. Reading her e-mails to the blogger after she learned she was forwarded, we're shocked she held her tongue. She stayed on the issue even when the blogger tried to defocus and deny. She never took it to a personal level but kept repeating why did you forward the e-mail and why are you lying to me?

He never answered her.

[Rebecca's written about this and included excerpts in her August 14th post "a big name blogger writes me."]

Going out on a sidebar, that's at least the second cozy up and pretend you're a friend person who's come along and forwarded an e-mail. Jess' e-mail responding to a pathetic explanation/apology from someone ended up being sport for some at The Nation -- strange since it wasn't sent to The Nation or anyone officially working (even as a freelancer) for The Nation. (As C.I. notes, "The fact that the man contacting The Common Ills sent an e-mail with the private correspondence of a journalist should have been the tip off that scruples were in short supply. Had I known that the e-mail contained private correspondence posted into it, I would have told Jess not to even bother replying.") And, as we've stated, Jess didn't say anything embarrassing. C.I. heard the e-mail, from friends at The Nation. But if the person who thought it was okay to stab Jess in the back wants to be embarrassed we can post his e-mail in full with all the private e-mails he included in it. We doubt that will go over very well with journalists who write him -- they will be apt to wonder, "If he would copy and paste _____'s private e-mails to him and sent them to someone else, what's he doing with our e-mails?" Good question.

So when people don't understand -- people who show up at this late date -- why they don't get a personal reply, that's why. At this site, longterm readers and community members (there is overlap) get personal replies. Everyone else is on a case by case basis. And for over a year now, one person or persons has repeatedly attempted to pass themselves off as community member Liang. We have Liang's phone number (she lives in the Bay Area) and when those come in, we pick up the phone and ask, "Did you write this?" It's always a mistake to pass yourself off as Liang because those of us in California see her several times a week so right away we think, "How strange that Liang would write us at the site and not at our personal accounts? How strange that she would ask ___ in an e-mail instead of over the phone, in text or in person? Liang knows what campus we attended. Did she hit her head and lose her memory?"