From: chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron)
Subject:  RON DANIELS Speech (part1)
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:42:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

Originally posted by harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai) on
misc.activism.progressive ...

Three excerpts:

    " [..] I'm not so sure that I would agree with Larry [Agran] that
   it's a matter of _rediscovering_ our democracy.  I think it's a
   question of _refashioning_ our democracy. [..] that which was, was
   never adequate in the first place..[..] The struggle therefore is
   to *finish* the unfinished democracy.  To *perfect* the imperfect
   union [...] in this country.  And so even *before* the cold war it
   was not perfect. [..]  The intervention in the affairs of Central
   America didn't begin with the cold war."

    "Africans in this country, brought to this country in chains, 100
    million Africans brought not because people thought they were
    inferior, not because of racism, but because of *economic
    exploitation* [...]  But not for the first 50 years could all white
    *men* vote, only *white men with property*.  Why?  Because from the
    very beginning, this union, the assumption was, if this country could
    be put in the hands of the propertied classes, if *they* are secure,
    everybody in America is supposed to be secure.

    " [..] you know, if you look at the founding fathers sitting around
    that table, they were all fathers, no mothers sitting around --- [...]
    there were no people there with buckskin britches and coonskin caps
    there.  There were no *workers* sitting at that table.  It was a
    revolution for the aristocracy and for the monied classes from the
    very beginning."


Transcribed by Don Fong <dfong@cse.ucsc.edu>
========================================================================
On May 21, 1992, there was a candidates forum at UCSC for
lesser-known presidential candidates Larry Agran and Ron Daniels.
Each candidate was given 30 minutes to present his statement.  Both
spoke well and were a refreshing change from the mainstream "clown
show", as Ron Daniels put it.  I found the event so interesting that
i wanted to share the candidates' statements with as many people
as possible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CANDIDATES FORUM, 21 MAY 1992
OAKES COLLEGE, UC SANTA CRUZ
LARRY AGRAN (DEMOCRAT), RON DANIELS (PEACE & FREEDOM)

Transcribed by Don Fong
from a tape provided by Christic Action Team.

    [comments in square brackets]       <sounds in angle brackets>
    _slight emphasis_                   *distinct emphasis*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RON DANIELS:

We certainly want to thank all of you for being kind enough to come
out this evening to hear presidential candidates who essentially
have been _whited out_ of the process. <nervous laughter>  To our
moderator and former mayor, it's good to be with him.  And it is
certainly a pleasure and privilege to be with Larry Agran, who as
far as I'm concerned is an independent candidate for President of
the United States, is the only Democratic candidate that I would be
proud to stand next to on a podium.  I think he is an _incredible_
politician.  You'd better believe it. <applause>  I want to
acknowledge the chairperson of the Peace & Freedom party in this
state, Maureen Smith.  Would you please wave your hand so that
people can see who you are. <applause>  And Tom Condit (sp?), who's
come down from the bay area, [...] <applause>

I want to spend a few moments on the subject ... of our Campaign for
a New Tomorrow.  We call our effort the Campaign for a New Tomorrow.
And in a real sense our Campaign for a New Tomorrow is a _crusade
for a new America_.  I think that it's important that we look at
this political season in historical context, because I'm not so
sure that I would agree with Larry [Agran] that it's a matter of
_rediscovering_ our democracy.  I think it's a question of
_refashioning_ our democracy.  So I think we have to begin at the
beginning, to understand the _nature_ of what this country's been
about from the very beginning.  Because if we don't understand that
in historical context, then we will recreate the same _madness_ that
afflicts us now.  Because we have to talk about fundamental change,
not incremental change!

*Fundamental change*, the quest to build a new society.  And in that
regard it seems to 1992 is an *incredible year* to talk about the
life and times of our people, to talk about the need for a new
politics.  Because 1992 is 500 years since Christopher Columbus was
*wandering around aimlessly* in the Caribbean, and was *beneficently
discovered* <laughter> by native Americans. <applause>  An act that
is significant because the hospitality of native peoples was
betrayed.  And it was betrayed by Christopher Columbus and all of
those who came behind him.  Betrayed on the altar of greed!  And the
notion that human beings could be _sacrificed in the interest of
profit_.  From the _very beginning of Europeans' arrival in this
hemisphere_, the problem has been a conflict of vision and values.
A conflict of vision and values that we have to this very moment!

that that which was, was never adequate in the first place.  And
what we must be challenging, what we must be talking about, is
looking at history so that history will inform us as to how to build
a new society into the 21st century.

So we must begin with truth and justice ...  And again, the symbol
of Christopher Columbus in terms of conquest and colonization, is a
sad chapter in the unfolding of this country.

Native Americans which were once 30 million people in this country,
are now only 3 million left.  Africans in this country, brought to
this country in chains, 100 million Africans brought not because
people thought they were inferior, not because of racism, but
because of *economic exploitation*.  And the seizure of territory,
*this territory* on which we stand, from Mexico in 1848.  How dare
the United States talk about Iraq's seizure of Kuwait, without
looking at its own history and talking about the seizure of
territory from Mexico in 1848? <applause>  And there's the history
of the Chinese being brought in and worked as [...] slaves.

The whole history of this country at one level has been based on
greed!  Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, talking about each
*man* selfishly seeking his own end, led as if by an invisible hand
to benefit all.  Any benefit is *coincidental* to the process of
someone selfishly seeking their own self-aggrandizement.  We cannot
talk about a new future without examining the values upon which this
country was built on in the first place.

If we look at 1776 to [...] 1787, the forging of this union again
was imperfect.  Tom Condit (sp?) [...] was talking about this this
afternoon, this union from the very beginning was an imperfect
union.  Thomas Jefferson etching out the first draft of the
Declaration of Independence. [...]  He talked about the pursuit of
life, liberty, and *property*.  He betrayed in so doing, what is
real, what the *real* revolution was fought about.  Or the so-called
revolution.  The quest on the part of a few in this country, to deal
with the question of property and property rights as being superior
to human rights.

The question of slavery was _ducked_ by the founding fathers.
Indeed, when we look at the compromises that were struck, Africans
were written into the constitution as 3/5 of a human being.  And
indeed, women, in the struggle between Jefferson and Hamilton ---
if we were to revisit that history for a moment --- it was Hamilton
who won, who said from the very beginning, if this union is to succeed,
it must be put into the hands of the propertied classes.  And so for
the first 50 years, *not all white people* could vote.  Not all
white *men* could vote.  Women were denied, period.  But not for the
first 50 years could all white *men* vote, only *white men with
property*.  Why?  Because from the very beginning, this union, the
assumption was, if this country could be put in the hands of the
propertied classes, if *they* are secure, everybody in America is
supposed to be secure.  And we've got to look at that!  Because if
we do not examine that proposition, then we will never ever arrive
at the right formula.

So native Americans excluded, white men without property excluded,
labor unorganized, the 3/5 compromise.  I suggest to you, friends,
brothers and sisters and friends, that the history of this country
has been the struggle of the dispossessed and the disadvantaged to
achieve greater economic and political democracy.  That's been the
history of this country.  From the very beginning it's --- you know,
if you look at the founding fathers sitting around that table, they
were all fathers, no mothers sitting around --- [...] there were no
people there with buckskin britches and coonskin caps there.  There
were no *workers* sitting at that table.  It was a revolution for
the aristocracy and for the monied classes from the very beginning.
So from the very beginning, the struggle has been, what? [questioning]
To fight for greater economic and political democracy! The struggle
therefore is to *finish* the unfinished democracy.  To *perfect* the
imperfect union [...] in this country.  And so even *before* the cold
war it was not perfect.

It was not ... it was *always* a society in which Calvin Coolidge
for example, --- a former President of the United States --- said,
what? [questioning] The business of government is, what?
[questioning] business.  The intervention in the affairs of Central
America didn't begin with the cold war.  America in terms of its
gunboat diplomacy was intervening in Central America and all over
the hemisphere as a part of the Monroe Doctrine for a _long_ time.

The Great Depression in some ways [...] and the New Deal forestalled
the whole question of a real revolution in this country because it
sort of sucked the life out of the contradictions.  But the same
people who ruled before the Great Depression were the same people
who ruled after the Great Depression.  The only thing is that
America was on a stage where it was a super-power almost all to
itself.  So therefore it could *bribe* the working class.  It could
pass on the benefits of this great democracy, which was in large
measure a function of its *exploitation* of the people of color
throughout the world.

We need to add that to our analysis if we're going to talk about
*real* change and fundamental change, and not just [...] cosmetic
change, within the context of what we're doing.  I say that because
we're in danger --- and again, [...]  the president of General
Motors said, what? [questioning] That what's good for General Motors
... is good for America.  You all know that.  You all know what
we're talking about. <laughter>  So as we prepare to enter the 21st
century, that struggle to perfect the American democracy must
continue.  Because now we see that democracy is still in danger.





From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:11:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Proving You're Not A Racist
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)