|
| MAIN | HISTORY |
NEWS | VIEWPOINTS |
COMMUNITY | NARRATIVES |
ART/CULTURE | |
Radical Resistance in Conservative Times: New Asian American Organizations in the 1990s
By Diane C. Fujino and Kye Leung
Part 6 of 16
Yet contrast this to the Twelve Point Platform of I Wor Kuen (IWK), an early 1970s Asian American group, which explicitly called for socialism, community control of not just institutions but also of land, and preparation "to defend our communities against repression and for revolutionary armed war against the gangsters, businessmen, politicians, and police."
Modeled after the platforms of IWK and the Black Panther Party (BPP), four of the five groups have developed Principles of Unity or platforms that guide their actions. While it is widely known that the BPP influenced many revolutionary groups including IWK, it is little known that' one of the three authors of the BPP's platform is a Japanese American revolutionary who was a high-ranking leader in the BPP (see Richard Aoki interview in this anthology). Moreover, given the increased conservativeness of the 1990s, it is not surprising that none of the current groups have as revolutionary an ideology as IWK. Still what is radical about the platforms of these new formations is their opposition to global capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism and heterosexism. ASIAN! too explicitly supports this radical ideology in their Guiding Principles. In addition, ACTION, ARC, and API FORCE call for basic human rights for all people, including affordable housing, food, universal health care, a living wage, and a multicultural education, and for environmental justice--the latter being a new demand not identified by IWK or BPP.
In the context of the 1990s, with its conservative mainstream politics and low revolutionary activity, it is not surprising that radical--and not revolutionary--Asian American groups would emerge. After all, it is difficult today to build an Asian-focused revolutionary party. Many of the newer radical activists are not ideologically or organizationally prepared to establish a revolutionary party; many of the veterans who previously were in cadre formations have personal and political differences that continue to preclude their unity; and many young people, new to politics, are not ready to join a revolutionary group. Moreover, given that multiracial or predominantly White revolutionary groups exist today, many of which include a few Asian members, some would argue that no revolutionary Asian organization exists today because there is no need for nation- or race-based organizations. As global capitalism expands and the meaning of national boundaries becomes less relevant, activists will no longer organize around nation- or race-specific formations. We disagree with this argument. By contrast, that these five radical Asian-specific groups have emerged in the 1990s and that their ideology embraces the need for API community control of institutions and resources points to the continuing significance of nation- or race-based organizing. Certainly, most activists today agree that one's analysis must be international in focus. But this does not preclude working towards control of institutions, resources, and land bases by communities or sovereign nations in conjunction with, or as a step towards, international socialism.
While broadly defined as radical, the five groups do self-identify with somewhat different ideologies. Most notable is that API FORCE consciously chose to organize a progressive organization, even though many of its initial members were radicals. Even the Bay Area, one of the most politically conscious areas of the country, lacked a progressive API presence in the 1990s. So API FORCE believed that broad base support was needed before building a revolutionary party. In addition, ARC is the only new Asian-specific organization to use the term "revolutionary" in their name. The other groups have "safe" names that in fact do not reflect their radical politics. Compared to other groups, ARC uses more revolutionary language.