Reply #223: M...well... [View All]

[Ravachol]

I have been, anonymously until now, reading all the DU articles and "responses/debates" daily for quite some time. To me, it has always seemed like I was getting another view of the USA, different of CNN and the likes.

I'm not an american citizen so it might be "somewhat" hard for me to understand how "deep" is this "race barrier" that some of you speak of. Or perhaps the recent event(s) just brought some oil on the ever-burning fire?

I'm kinda stunned to see that anti-Bush(co) militants have differences over "race". I would expect political disagreements (anarchists against maoists, moderates against liberals, etc.) but never expected such "racial" problems.

It doesn't seem logical to me that you guys are divided over a matter of skin when poor white, black, latinos (and so on) are all getting f.ucked by the Bush cabal. What matters is class, not skin, it is evident. I ain't so much refering to the original article - which is an interesting point of view even if there is a good number of generalities and some implicit demagogy - as I am pointing out at what seems to be a persistent "view" on DU.

It is pathetic to think that americans now vote "for the alternative" to Bush instead of voting for the best party. So, since Bush and co. (GOP) are a bunch of (insert any pejorative adjective here), the Dems should be getting your vote? I must have missed something about democracy... Asides from the economic growth of the Clinton-era, I'm sorry to say that USA was no heaven. Even the good economy must be replaced in its own context:
1)Good economy around the industrialized world.
2)It was a very liberal era and a lot of the "growth" was made on the back of the poor, as usual in a capitalist system.

Even if the two Bush (Mein Führer 1 and 2) started the two, consecutive Iraq wars, one must remember that Clinton is guilty of pursuing the "Oil for Food" program which claimed the lives of about 3000 iraqi babies and young children each month.

They are also guilty of collaborating with the Bush administration. Some of them, less. But for the good majority, they did and with great satisfaction it seems. The great number of your (americans) "leaders" are from the same class (is there any exception?). Don't wonder why there's so few of them denouncing the "Tax Cuts for the riches".

Speaking of "leaders", why are you people forced to always have "leaders" or wait for them? I think that's why I liked Bronx's initial message, actually. Why are you guys so fond of possible leaders? Can't you think for your own good?! You don't need a "national" leader to actually organize a movement, to fight the fascist and imperialist regime in place. You don't need a "national" leader to tell you when you need to go out to demonstrate or protest.

The USA don't need any regional riot, they need a revolution. And a march once in a year won't make a revolution. The bourgeoisie won't make a revolution. Only the people can. That's up to you, americans. If you truly want to "help" the world, start solving your own internal problems. :)

P.S: Bronx, I don't like the "you guys" kind of thing, as well. But I also don't like the "our people", "we think that", etc. It is nothing but demagogy and generalization.
P.P.S: Like tocqueville above, english is not my "native language" so excuse the grammar/spelling mistakes that might have occured.