Class War Bonfire Party

216 posts / 0 new
Last post
raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 12 2006 20:06
Mike Harman wrote:
A very good mate from work is "muslim", and lives not too far from that fireworks party, I've had a load of open and frank discussions about politics and religion with him and I also know he'd be well freaked out by that photo. Stuff like this does make anarchists look like complete cunts, and I'll be doubly careful not to call myself one again. It's fucking embarrassing.

I'm sure any imagery of anti-islam will freak him out, No? I mean if I believe in something and see some thing which is taking the piss out of it I would naturally be outraged - which no doubt is the fucking reason! i mean Islam oppress millions of people around the world with its poxy moral codes and superstitutions, I sure many people from "muslim" countries might support such actions. Weren't students in the Iranian Revolution doing street burnings of the Koran? Didn't anti-fascist militants shoot priests in Spain 1936? Can't we burn effigies of these dieties in Hackney 2006?

answers on a post card.

Raw

p.s. when do we do CW burn an effigy of John.?

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 12 2006 20:18
raw wrote:
I'm sure any imagery of anti-islam will freak him out, No? I mean if I believe in something and see some thing which is taking the piss out of it I would naturally be outraged - which no doubt is the fucking reason!

For someone who emphasises inclusiveness so much, you're sure alienating the vast majority of people who may hold reactionary beliefs. Almost kinda...elitist wouldn't you think?

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 12 2006 20:23
Glory hunter wrote:
...and the effect that has on the public perception of Anarchism...

Please permit me to laugh myself silly.

Glory hunter
Offline
Joined: 13-01-05
Nov 12 2006 20:30

Thats alright, as long as you piss yourself while your doing it.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 12 2006 20:39

I can use the towel I wear on my head to mop it up.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 12 2006 20:48
Quote:
You know, burning effigys is not particularly to my taste, but you have over reacted to it, and the intense dislike of Class war, has blinded you to this.

You seem to be under the impression that libcom is some tight-knit homogenous group and that the forums are somehow its hive-mind...

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Nov 12 2006 20:56
Quote:
I'm sure any imagery of anti-islam will freak him out, No? I mean if I believe in something and see some thing which is taking the piss out of it I would naturally be outraged - which no doubt is the fucking reason! i mean Islam oppress millions of people around the world with its poxy moral codes and superstitutions, I sure many people from "muslim" countries might support such actions. Weren't students in the Iranian Revolution doing street burnings of the Koran? Didn't anti-fascist militants shoot priests in Spain 1936? Can't we burn effigies of these dieties in Hackney 2006?

Raw - the point wasn't that anarchists shouldn't burn effigies, or that anarchists tiptoe around criticising organised religion. The point was that 'Mohammed' here is a racist stereotype. The challenge people have made is the perceived casual racism of it all.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Nov 12 2006 21:13
Glory hunter wrote:
Don't know if any of you noticed, but on the Class war section there is a thread by CWF in which they state their decision to abandon this place.

nobody noticed, because contrary to your opinion of yourself you are a bunch of irrelevant cunts, but yeah sure thanks for telling us, and thank fuck we don't have to read your pointless attempts at self promotion any more

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 12 2006 22:01
raw wrote:
I'm sure any imagery of anti-islam will freak him out, No? I mean if I believe in something and see some thing which is taking the piss out of it I would naturally be outraged - which no doubt is the fucking reason!

Except his belief in it is very much in question and has been for the past year. I was talking less about 'outrage' than simple freaking out though - if a few Bangladeshi kids had turned up to the fireworks party what do you think their reaction would've been?

Quote:
Weren't students in the Iranian Revolution doing street burnings of the Koran? Didn't anti-fascist militants shoot priests in Spain 1936? Can't we burn effigies of these dieties in Hackney 2006?

Are you trying to compare these events?? What you miss is that in both cases they were dealing with specific forms of repression from religiously motivated ruling classes, I don't see quite the same thing happening in Hackney 2006.

I had a look 'round for some more effigies of Mohammed. This is the only one I could find:

Quote:
Certain towns in southern Spain hold an annual festival called "Moros y Cristianos" ("Moors and Christians"), which celebrates the Reconquista -- the recapture of the Iberian Peninsula by Christian Spaniards from the Muslim colonizers who had invaded centuries earlier. In some locales, at the climax of the festival, townspeople burn Mohammed in effigy. The Mohammed figure, called La Mahoma, is usually bigger than life-size and in full costume. The picture here shows La Mahoma from the 1920 Moros y Cristianos festival in the town of Biar, near Alicante.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/misc_mo/

More Carlist than CNT...

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 12 2006 22:03

Glory Hunter:

Quote:
You know very well that there was no racist intention in it, anybody with an once of common sense could have seen that.

People on this thread have repeatedly stated that they don't think there was any racist intention behind it. That doesn't make it any better.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Nov 12 2006 22:59

Worth repeating.

DU wrote:
The point was that 'Mohammed' here is a racist stereotype. The challenge people have made is the perceived casual racism of it all.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 12 2006 23:23
rkn wrote:
Worth repeating.

DU wrote:
The point was that 'Mohammed' here is a racist stereotype. The challenge people have made is the perceived casual racism of it all.

Alot of things can be percieved, I rather it was anarchists (i.e. anti-racists, anti-capitalist...etc) types burning these effigies than the BNP racists.

And yes if a load of stepney green boys turned up, then we might have got a fight on our hands - though they would have been already too pissed and doped up to notice their great prophet (SIC) going up in flames.

kids huh?

Raw

p.s. cantocartwheels you really are a sad freak, CW is not the enemy, nor is comrade glory hunter, its your father.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 12 2006 23:31
raw wrote:
Alot of things can be percieved, I rather it was anarchists (i.e. anti-racists, anti-capitalist...etc) types burning these effigies than the BNP racists.

I'd rather it was either atheist Muslims, or no one.

Quote:
And yes if a load of stepney green boys turned up, then we might have got a fight on our hands - though they would have been already too pissed and doped up to notice their great prophet (SIC) going up in flames.

Er, what?

Most people - including most asians - would think that looked like a bunch of white people burning a racial charicature of a Muslim. If you haven't noticed, lots of people hate Muslims, and the press has been running a huge hate campaign against them for a long time.

raw wrote:
p.s. when do we do CW burn an effigy of John.?

Again, what?
:?

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 12 2006 23:37

Its a fucking shame that this has to come as CW leave. Spats over bollocks like Ian Bone's book - who did what for simon chapmann blah blah blah, or those stickers - that was fuck all. As usual fur flew over fuck all, and means that an important thread like this one is seen as continuation of plastic hostilities.

Its not.

CW made a genuinely fucked up mistake with this. It would be good to discuss it properly and try see what the ppl who did it hoped to achieve.

raw: shut up for fucks sake, John. is one of the more tolerant people here anyway.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 13 2006 00:14
raw wrote:
rkn wrote:
Worth repeating.

DU wrote:
The point was that 'Mohammed' here is a racist stereotype. The challenge people have made is the perceived casual racism of it all.

Alot of things can be percieved, I rather it was anarchists (i.e. anti-racists, anti-capitalist...etc) types burning these effigies than the BNP racists.

Is this a joke? I'll assume not, just for kicks.

Who says the two are necessarily mutually exclusive (in hypothetical terms)? Moreover, why are you conflating anarchism with self-proclaimed "anarchists"? Anarchism isn't a club you can join and never leave, it's a descriptive term applied to the thoughts and actions of individuals and groups within a certain space on the (anti-)political spectrum. Sticking feathers up your ass does not a chicken make.

Moreover, if we disregard my first point, why would you even attempt to defend anarchists (if we're assuming that's what CWF, to be honest I'd rather they didn't use that word) moving in that direction?

Quite incredible.

And who the fuck are Stepney Green boys? Do you mean Islamists, practising Muslims, non-practising Muslims, Asians, what? Jesus fuck.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Nov 13 2006 00:19
Tacks wrote:
Its not. CW made a genuinely fucked up mistake with this. It would be good to discuss it properly and try see what the ppl who did it hoped to achieve.

Oh piss off. You already know exactly what they thought they hoped to achieve. Its just a rather pathetic recruitment drive and publicity stunt.
What exactly would talking to them achieve?

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 13 2006 00:44
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Tacks wrote:
Its not. CW made a genuinely fucked up mistake with this. It would be good to discuss it properly and try see what the ppl who did it hoped to achieve.

Oh piss off. You already know exactly what they thought they hoped to achieve. Its just a rather pathetic recruitment drive and publicity stunt.
What exactly would talking to them achieve?

Fuck you, you can't shit on them so you start on me for fucks sake? For a start, we have no idea who the fuck this was AIMED at... Was it meant to start small media scandal? Get them in hot water with the dodgy new religious laws? Was it meant to be statement aimed at putting fire in the belly of the attendees/passers by, or was it aimed at upsetting 'the mullahs'?

They have chosen that pic to go on their website. The site gets a ot of hits.

anyway - my comment was that now of ALL times it was worth criticising CW, not over some bollocks like bombastic stickers, cos this was a serious fuck up. And it will be lost in the morass of bitter arguments over nothing which have occurred thus far. I'd like ppl from CW to listen to this one; they can't if they're not here.

The debate is however, ongoing on 'meanwhile' which is good.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 13 2006 00:45
Tacks wrote:
Its not. CW made a genuinely fucked up mistake with this. It would be good to discuss it properly and try see what the ppl who did it hoped to achieve.

Well me, John, refused and pingtiao have been posting on the mwatb thread but all we've had is people calling us "liberals, "Trots", "Respect", "social fascists" etc. etc.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 13 2006 00:46
Tacks wrote:
The debate is however, ongoing on 'meanwhile' which is good.

It's not very constructive though, they seem to be blaming libcom group for trying to stick the boot in, and seem to think we control all of your minds. And also that we are called "limp cock".

CW people could respond on here if they wanted, in public. But one of them just posted here to say "wanker".


Admin - personal attack post below removed. The person who posted it cut it out.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 13 2006 00:49
John. wrote:
I think it would be accurate to say that pretty much every person in the country who wasn't either a racist, or in the small group of class war or IWCA periphery would think this was stupid. And probably the IWCA types would think it childish.

Bit puzzled; who in the IWCA or IWCA periphery would do anything like this? I have read nothing of theirs which deals with religion. I really doubt they would even recognise the thinking behind it.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 13 2006 00:51

To cantdocartwheels:

John. wrote:
Are any of them going to comment on any of this? It's a shame because some of them are really good people.

John. can piss off too i take it then?

john
Offline
Joined: 9-07-06
Nov 13 2006 00:51
Mike Harman wrote:

Well me, John [sic - it should no capitals to avoid confusion], refused and pingtiao have been posting on the mwatb thread but all we've had is people calling us "liberals, "Trots", "Respect", "social fascists" etc. etc.

and "bean" - but I'm still yet to find out what that is

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 13 2006 00:51
Tacks wrote:
John. wrote:
I think it would be accurate to say that pretty much every person in the country who wasn't either a racist, or in the small group of class war or IWCA periphery would think this was stupid. And probably the IWCA types would think it childish.

Bit puzzled; who in the IWCA or IWCA periphery would do anything like this? I have read nothing of theirs which deals with religion. I really doubt they would even recognise the thinking behind it.

I was referring to the MWATB posters community basically. IWCA members don't seem to be involved in the discussion though.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 13 2006 00:53
John. wrote:
Tacks wrote:
John. wrote:
I think it would be accurate to say that pretty much every person in the country who wasn't either a racist, or in the small group of class war or IWCA periphery would think this was stupid. And probably the IWCA types would think it childish.

Bit puzzled; who in the IWCA or IWCA periphery would do anything like this? I have read nothing of theirs which deals with religion. I really doubt they would even recognise the thinking behind it.

I was referring to the MWATB posters community basically. IWCA members don't seem to be involved in the discussion though.

LLETSA is and he was opposed to the idea.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Nov 13 2006 01:03
Tacks wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Tacks wrote:
Its not. CW made a genuinely fucked up mistake with this. It would be good to discuss it properly and try see what the ppl who did it hoped to achieve.

Oh piss off. You already know exactly what they thought they hoped to achieve. Its just a rather pathetic recruitment drive and publicity stunt.
What exactly would talking to them achieve?

Fuck you, you can't shit on them so you start on me for fucks sake? For a start, we have no idea who the fuck this was AIMED at... Was it meant to start small media scandal? Get them in hot water with the dodgy new religious laws? Was it meant to be statement aimed at putting fire in the belly of the attendees/passers by, or was it aimed at upsetting 'the mullahs'?

They have chosen that pic to go on their website. The site gets a ot of hits.

anyway - my comment was that now of ALL times it was worth criticising CW, not over some bollocks like bombastic stickers, cos this was a serious fuck up. And it will be lost in the morass of bitter arguments over nothing which have occurred thus far. I'd like ppl from CW to listen to this one; they can't if they're not here.

The debate is however, ongoing on 'meanwhile' which is good.

Exactly, it was class war doing there usual run of the mill 'contraversial' publicity stunt. Whats there to debate?

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 13 2006 02:43
Tacks wrote:
For a start, we have no idea who the fuck this was AIMED at... Was it meant to start small media scandal? Get them in hot water with the dodgy new religious laws? Was it meant to be statement aimed at putting fire in the belly of the attendees/passers by, or was it aimed at upsetting 'the mullahs'?

Doesn't matter who it was aimed at, what matters is who saw it. If Raw is to be believed, no passers by took serious umbrage, so the only people thus far to call them out on it is in this thread and I understand some posters on another similar forum. I'm not sure whether that's more damning of the current British political discourse or CW's tactics.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 13 2006 08:47

My mum would have been offended by it, is that good enough reason not to do it FFS!

Re: Stepney Green Boys, young asian muslim gang I met on the school kids walk out, we ended up with them in the city of london - smashing windows, fighting with cops and various members of the white proletariat (which were hurling racist abuse at these kids - one construction worker attacked a 14 year old asian kid with a hammer - ah class solidarity!). They were shouting "Allah Akbar" whilst snogging their hajab wearing girlfriends, smoking splifss and drinking cans of stella (that were looted from an off license). Ah happy days.

Raw

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Nov 13 2006 09:55

I think it was a bizarre thing to do. I also agree it is a racist stereotype. I think a communist from a muslim country can invert the stereotype without fear of looking like a racist - but the same is not true of white, english, leftists.

I come from a country that was until very recently a fundamentalist religious state, and I know how annoying it is to have people from more liberal states come over here and act as if Ireland was a priest ridden backwater (*even if at the time it was*). It just feels very arrogant and patronising.

Here's a question: who was the audiance for this? What was it attempting to say?

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 13 2006 10:08

But I saw atleast three anarchist from "muslim" countries at the bonfire, and lets not forgot the majority were from christian countries who burned jesus! Anyway, like glory hunter said before it was a bit of fun - why can't we reclaim anti-religion (including anti-Islam) from the BNP racists and state?

Raw

Luther Blissett
Offline
Joined: 24-06-06
Nov 13 2006 10:21

What's the point in flouncing from libcom?

If CWF are going to stick their neck out w/o first discussing the imagery and terminology they're using before going live/publishing, then surely it's inevitable that they'll be accused of a narrow-vision?

No-one's knocking their drive, as far as I can see, but people are criticising the way they've confused symbolism/imagery in relation to situationalist-style stunts.

That people can be bothered to even say anything at all shows that people care about how CWF stuntism/publicity is perceived and received in the wider world.

That the use of a metaphorical phrase 'The point we'd like to stab you with' was taken literally by Darren Redstar, shows you just how easy it is to take what's written down on face value - ie. literally!

Every day the media bullcrap thrusts another set of barrage of bullshit views and opinions on the public, trying to shape our views so we'll support the state as it squeezes and scapegoats yet another mass of struggling people for it's own political and capitalistic ends.

As for the comments made over on that other board, (respect, trots, liberals, and er, 'bean' (as in mr.?) are a shibboleth that reveals more about the commentators' attitudes than the attitudes of the critics here on libcom.

And as a result of these criticisms aired on libcom, CWF/LCW want to flounce off to another forum where everyone will agree with them, and use sectarian 'insults' that wouldn't look out of place in a Coulter's Fan Site, Free Republic, BNP, or even ex-leftists the AWL.

All that seems to have been said on this thread, is that CWF/LCW have been affected by a institutionalised-media racism at a core level, and that this has affected their output to their own membership and beyond. Nothing more, nothing less.

Topic locked