Sent time:   Saturday, October 15, 2011 11:26:32 PM

I think an expression of solidarity would be interpreted as at least as strong as an endorsement by much of the country if not the world.
On 10/15/11, Lycophidion<> wrote:
I believe that, unfortunately, the comrades of the MJB are offering a
straw-man argument regarding supposed accusations that it is violent,
etc. That was never the issue. Lili merely stated a concern that,
given the lack of democracy in THIS country, the fact that the EZLN is
an armed revolutionary movement means that an endorsement by OWS could
be turned against OWS by the media. I acknowledged this concern, but
noted that it is secondary to the issue of whether or not a
politically diverse movement like OWS, consisting of a wide range of
political groupings and opinions can endorse a particular
organization, which implies support for its program. I noted how this
played itself out in the successful anti-apartheid movement. Robert
said essentially the same thing, as did Andy. If MJB wishes to
convince us of the validity of an endorsement, it would be better to
address those arguments. On the other hand, Layan observed that the
call was not for an endorsement but a statement of solidarity. That
isn't at all clear from their above statement, which asserts: "We
propose that at this upcoming Wednesday's General Assembly meeting,
the OWS General Assembly consider, and ultimately endorse, a statement
or resolution of support for the Zapatista communities of San Miguel
Avilés and San Patricio." If Layan has additional information or
insight, please share it... If what is at stake is a simple expression
of solidarity, it would be far more useful and less divisive if we, as
a movement, expressed solidarity with the specific communities
involved, as such.


On Oct 14, 8:33 pm, wrote:
> A few things...
> The wildly irresponsible and misinformed commentary concerning the
> Zapatistas, which has arisen in response to our humble proposal, have
> obliged us to offer a rejoinder.
> These baseless comments, which for example distort the Zapatistas as
> "armed" and "violent," are - ironically enough - directly informed by the
> same oppressive media discourse that paints OWS as confused, aimless,
> unproductive, disorganized, etc. Thus, in suggesting as much, you
> reproduce and give legitimacy to the very people who seek to stigmatize
> you - an even more "dangerous" media strategy.
> Regrettably, this is but one example of several troubling misconceptions
> surrounding the Zapatistas that some folks have circulated here.
> We invite those with limited knowledge of the EZLN's profound 28-year
> history of struggle, and its vast contributions to intellectual, cultural,
> and political life, to consult the document we provided in our proposal.
> This document, the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle (again, in
> English here:, clearly
> articulates the EZLN's vision, methods, and goals. Upon reading it, you
> will note that they are decidedly a non-violent movement.
> In addition, we invite those who seem confused as to what constitutes
> violence to remember the following: That the true violence -
> malnourishment, poverty, displacement, rape, harassment, physical attacks,
> and death - is currently being faced by the Zapatista indigenous
> communities of San Marcos Avilés and San Patricio, to whom we offer our
> unwavering support and solidarity, as an affirmation of our shared
> humanity.
> -Movement for Justice in El Barrio