From deke@wps.com Thu Nov 3 12:25:41 1994 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (root@mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by fido.wps.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA06443 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 12:24:37 -0800 Received: from igc.apc.org (igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.51 ) with SMTP id MAA12215 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 12:24:26 -0800 Received: (from freevoice@localhost) by igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.183 ) id MAA26720; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 12:24:24 -0800 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 12:24:24 -0800 From: Freevoice Message-Id: <199411032024.MAA26720@igc.apc.org> To: iww-list@fido.wps.com Subject: Clarification on Black/POC Organizing drive Cc: mdamore@moose.uvm.edu Status: OR Fellow Workers, I noticed that many of the criticisms of the Black/People of Color Organizing Proposal refer to how it sets up an "independent", "sectarian" group funded by the IWW, but not an IWW drive. When FW Mike D'Amore asked me whether this was the case, I was somewhat dumbfounded. I had always understood the drive to be an IWW project to bring Blacks and People of Color into the IWW. So I reread the proposal to see if the proposal was setting up an independent group, and I think I see where the confusion arose. The Proposal, despite repeatedly referring to organizing workers into the IWW at one point the proposal states " It (Black/People of Color organizing drive) will have fraternal relations with the IWW..." This is apparently the crux of the confusion. I just called up FW Ervin to clarify the question. He response was quite enlightening. 1) The drive will consist of IWW members, and joining the drive will be contingent upon joining the IWW. (Currently all three authors Lorenzo Ervin, Dwayne Stewart, and Greg Jackson are members in good standing of the IWW.) 2) The drive will be an IWW organization, subject to the all that implies. 3) The term "fraternal relations" was not intended to mean that the drive was separate from the IWW. It arose, in part, out of a confusion regarding the structure of the IWW. FW Lorenzo has had many experiences wherein groups, in typical racist fashion, have used his name, but have deprived him or any meaningful input into his own organizing under the groups auspices. Certainly in the IWW we can relate to this concern. FW Lorenzo intended to convey that the drive would apply the principal of local autonomy in the drive and would not be in a subservient position to a perceived National IWW Bureaucracy. Naturally, the drive would be subject to the constitution of the IWW, yet it would be independent of the micro management of self-styled experts. Interestingly, FW Ervin pointed out that this level of scrutiny had not been applied to many previous funding requests. If it would make many of the FWs concerned about the proposal happy, he will cooperate with meeting the concerns they have voiced, including those around the issue of "Anti-political Sects". Personally, I think that many of these questions on wording could be prevented if the IWW could agree on some guidelines for proposals, so that those writing proposals would not be flying blind. It is often saddening how some of our members are so quick to act like pit-bulls, instead of offering constructive advice, and helping educate new members in the more obtuse aspects of the union, In Solidarity Josie, x341890 PS I, personally, have signed up three new members in the last month who joined in large part because of FW Ervin's proposal (One of whom is a member of the drive).