MIM Notes 166        July 15, 1998

LETTERS

Racial statistics

MIM received the following in response to the article in 
MIM Notes 165 (July 1), "Pig lobby kills Congressional 
bill to study racist traffic stops." This article 
reported on Congressional Representative Conyers' bill 
to "collect racial and ethnic statistics on traffic 
stops" by cops.

Dear MIM,

MIM should take advantage of this opportunity to explain 
the importance of Black national oppression versus class 
oppression. The reason Conyers can point to African-
Americans of wealth and social prominence being harassed 
by cops is because of the fact of national oppression. 
It doesn't even matter if these Black individuals are 
comprador Steppin Fetchit types; the cops see Black, and 
that's enough reason to harass, proving that, under 
imperialism, nationality is the principle contradiction.

MIM should also make clear that the debate over this 
issue is itself illuminating. The fact that the pigs 
don't want these statistics gathered is proof enough 
that they have something to hide. The fact that this 
bill doesn't do anything to concretely address national 
oppression makes the cops' resistance all the more 
insidious. How hard will they fight real change?

MIM should also point out that the assemblage of 
statistics could be progressive because it would 
contribute to "official" proof in support of MIM's 
claims, even though it does nothing to alter the fact of 
national oppression. In my area, a local newspaper 
researched this kind of statistics, and the articles 
proved to be very damning. Sure, it's a Republican 
newspaper in a Democratic town, and the editors only 
intended to damage the Democratic administration, not 
help the Black Nation, but, like Marx wrote, progressive 
people can exploit the schisms that exist within the 
ruling class to make limited, temporary gains.

In struggle,
--a RAIL comrade,
June 1998 


MIM-NEWS subscriber tells MIM to shut the f--- up

MIM,

Huh? Got your mail, in re: the crack sterilization. What 
is your point? I'm as dense as hell, but I could not get 
what the point was. Crack is bad. Addicted babies are 
bad. What is the alternative? Why do women think that 
the only thing they have is babies? What is the reason 
that women have children out of wedlock? Why is marriage 
patriarchal? What is at the root of the oppression of 
women? You are exceptionally good at pointing fingers, 
but poor at drawing revolutionary conclusions. Sorry, 
but that's the way I see it. Tell me how I can organize 
around issues like this, or shut the fu-- up, o.k?

What are the political reasons women (wimmen [sic]) do 
this? How do you draw Marxist-Leninist-Maoist 
(materialist) lessons about this? I merely see heat and 
no light around this piece. Again, sorry. Talk to me.

Maybe I missed something. If I did, it's my fault.

--MIM-NEWS subscriber

MIM responds: Thanks for writing. Our point was (is) -
- that paying addicted wimmin to get sterilized is a 
cruel and selfish approach to patriarchy, poverty and 
drug addiction. It says, "we don't care about your 
problems, we just want to make sure there are no more of 
you."

We point the finger where it belongs: at imperialism and 
national oppression. As we said, we need to attack 
social inequality. With a program that cynically, openly 
tells wimmin not to let pregnancy interfere with their 
drug habits -- those programs are the worst kind of 
reformism, because they admit they don't care about the 
root causes of oppression, only the inconvenient 
results.

Now -- if you want to talk about why wimmin want to have 
babies, inside or outside the context of legal marriage 
-- that's great. Let's talk about that. But that 
conversation shouldn't absolve blatantly genocidal 
programs like CRACK from criticism.

How should you organize around this? Demand that 
resources go to free drug treatment programs controlled 
by the people, rather than sterilization. Demand full 
employment and socialized child care. Demand socialism!