portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

imperialism & war

Analyzing the Movement-Looking Back at PPRC 6

"To fight the Empire is to be infected by its derangement; this is a paradox; whoever defeats a segment of the Empire becomes the Empire; it proliferates like a virus, imposing its form on its enemies. Thereby it becomes its enemies." -Philip K. Dick, Valis, 1983
"To fight the Empire is to be infected by its derangement; this is a paradox; whoever defeats a segment of the Empire becomes the Empire; it proliferates like a virus, imposing its form on its enemies. Thereby it becomes its enemies." -Philip K. Dick, Valis, 1983

Breaking away from linearity I want to outline what I saw at the very last PPRC Friday rally I attended before I tell you about the first one. I went to this last rally in late August of 2003 because I was called out, emailed an invitation to show solidarity with the Friday afternoon marchers. Two weeks earlier the protest had been attacked by a group of about eight young thugs. PPRC was moved to sound the alarm by a physical assault that included one of the protesters being momentarily choked in the crook of a thug's arm.

There was a chance that the thugs were sent by the government:

A member of PPRC wrote on Indymedia:

"In Germany in the 1930s, the marginalized of the community were recruited to attack leftists and those who opposed the Nazis. The same is true of attacks on labor organizers here in the US. In East Timor, it was drug addicts, petty criminals and folks who were otherwise the injured and underclass of the society who were drafted into the militias, their anger and frustration channeled against the people fighting for independence."

We could not back down, our strength was in our numbers, and everybody who was remotely connected to the Peace Movement was asked to show up.

I turned up a week late, two weeks after the attack. But the feeling of martyrdom was still palpable, especially amongst the organizers.

The first thing I noticed was that the faces hadn't changed in the two years since the Friday rally was created. While the PPRC general meetings had emptied out, the rally itself was static. I hadn't been to a Friday rally since April, but when I came back it was like I hadn't missed a day. It had been the same thirty or so people, every week, for two years.

I spent the march talking to a fellow-traveler who only attended the protest in order to give out Trotskyite literature from the World Socialists Web Site. We agreed that PPRC was not a revolutionary organization, and argued about everything else.

Back at the square a PPRC organizer who I'll call W led the march to the middle. He had everyone join hands, everyone that is except for the Trotskyite and me, we hung back and watched.

Everyone formed a circle, joined hands, and W started to chant.

"What do we want?" he screamed.

"Peace," the marchers said less audibly.

"When do we want it?"

"Now," the crowd mumbled.

Nobody broke rank; nobody even let go of a hand in order to cover his or her face from embarrassment. Nobody said anything without first receiving a cue from W.

Looking down on the scene, literally above it on the steps of Pioneer Square, I felt sick. When would W ask these people to drink the Kool-Aid?

The PPRC Friday rally had become a spectacle. It operated on the level of myth and emotionalism. Like everything else in the political realm it seemed designed to limit participation while flattering it's audience. Like a Volvo or a pair of Nikes PPRC rallies offered only the momentary confirmation of a predetermined set of values that the individual marcher could self-righteously consume but never act upon.

Why did this happen? It's not what was intended, not what we wanted to create in the beginning, but perhaps it was the logical outcome of the earliest decisions PPRC leaders made.

By opting to work on "educating the public" and building a mass movement through media events, PPRC started out already accepting that the majority of its members would be spectators.

And while perhaps nobody consciously realized what we were doing, what dynamic we were setting up, that does not mean that everyone involved was innocent. PPRC fell into a spectacular or propaganda mode without any thought at all, but that doesn't meant that there weren't a few people like W who benefited from the dissolution of the group and who actively pushed the organization towards this endpoint where it became a cultish fašade hiding a total lack of real engagement.

Let's go back to a point just after the beginning.

I was talking to the new head of PPRC, although I didn't know it at the time. The Anti-authoritarian Caucus had quit, walked out en masse, and I was trying to tell all the activists at the bar that this was, perhaps, a bad thing. The kids in the Anarchist Caucus were obnoxious and a bit absurd, mostly punks and would be punks. But, when they all left at once I felt off balance. They at least tried to talk a good game. With them gone we were in danger of not even having conversations about democratic participation and the need for radical change.

"It's all right if we lose some people, it happens all the time. This kind of activist group always shrinks down to the truly committed few," W said.

"Listen, I consider myself to be a kind of anarchist and I find it troubling that these people felt they couldn't stay in PPRC and remain true to their principles," I said.

"I understand. We're all anarchists really," W told me.

It was, of course, both a completely vapid thing to say, and also a lie.

A lot of what I heard from PPRC leadership, especially in private, was vapid, disingenuous, and often smugly authoritarian:

"People won't be ready to really run their own lives, they can't be expected to participate in shaping society, for at least a hundred years. We'll need that long to educate people. Working on more participatory forms of activism now is a joke," one PPRC and Green party leader told me.

"Now that the anti-war position is more popular we've opted to take a more cautious and conservative approach," another leader confessed.

"I don't know if another big protest will do us any good," a very prominent activist leader told me after the war on Iraq had started.

I tried to argue. People wanted another large protest, they needed the sense of momentum and solidarity large rallies are all about.

"People need to feel like there is somewhere to go, like the Peace Movement isn't going to pack it in and go home," I told him.

This leader who I'll call H looked at me warily. "I don't know," he said. What he didn't say, but what I understood, was that he was afraid of what thirty thousand pissed off protesters might do. What he didn't say, was that the he didn't trust these people who were showing up to oppose the war, and wasn't willing to damage his reputation by organizing a protest that he couldn't control.

The real question is how these few people managed to gain such a disproportionate amount of authority. Why is it that groups like CNPJ or PPRC, groups with a collective membership of maybe thirty people, could dominate so completely at a time when there was more widespread interest in peace protests, when there were thousands of people who wanted to be involved? Why did so few make the decisions for so many?

"A final psychological effect of propaganda is the appearance of the need for propaganda. The individual subjected to propaganda can no longer do without it [... ]The more the individual is captured by propaganda, the more sensitive he is--not to its content, but to the impetus it gives him, to the excitement it makes him feel."-Jacques Ellul, Propaganda, 1965

Propaganda runs deep. It is not merely a matter of lies told to convince the masses to go to war or buy a Buick. In a society like ours, a society where local cultures and communities have shriveled up or been bulldozed into the ground, in a world without smaller and more natural systems of authority, there is nothing to connect to, nothing to relate to, except the mass culture. And there is no way to develop a relationship with this mass society except through its propaganda.

It was December 2001 and I was talking to W. We were sitting in another bar, talking under a poster of the Twin Towers with the word "Peace" at the bottom. There were about 20 of us that Friday night, and the conversations were fast and furious. If you weren't aggressive in this crowd you could easily end up on the outside of all the conversations, barely able to make one out from the others in the din.

I was aggressive. "I want to talk to you," I told W.
He put down his beer and made space for me on the bench at his table.

What I wanted to talk to W about was the need for ambition. I wanted to find out what he thought was realistic to try for, and perhaps convince him that changing the social/economic system should be the real goal of the peace movement. We had to at least advocate for democratic control of the workplace, had to aim at abolishing private tyranny in the form of corporations. The Peace Movement, as far as I was concerned, had to be an anti-capitalist movement.

"I agree with you, in theory," W said. "When I was young I used to think that people were good, that these problems could be changed. I'd get upset when my friends would tell me that people were inherently greedy and corrupt. I'd get livid when people told me there was no way to change human nature.

"I'd tell them that we didn't have to change people, we just had to get rid of some of the people in power. 'It's not all people, it's these people.'" W said. "But, you know, I've been an activist for 20 years now, and I think it really is everyone. It's all people. I just don't expect as much as I used to expect." W told me that I couldn't expect too much from people.

We couldn't expect that activists would be activists 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. People needed to just be. People needed to go on vacations, enjoy a day out, go to a movie.

"That's what activism is really about. We're fighting for people who are starving and dying, but we can't forget what life is in the meantime. What gives life its purpose, you know? What makes it bearable? It's just these kinds of things that people want. To go to the movies, to go to the beach."

I understood what he meant, but I wasn't sure how it was relevant to my argument that we needed to make radical changes and soon. I'd gone to him to ask him what we should, he was obviously more experienced than I was, knew more about how to organize, how to do this political stuff. I recognized that the way the world was what with wage slave jobs and thousands of public humiliations that pile up all the time, people did indeed need leisure time. People needed a break from the constant struggle. And if you were lucky enough that you could find a way to take a break, go on vacation, then you should take care of yourself and get away every once in awhile.

Still, I was reminded of a conversation I'd had with a high school friend of mine months earlier. We were at a mutual friend's wedding, hadn't seen each other for years, and I had to explain that I was struggling with low paying jobs and intended to write for a living eventually. This friend of mine, another professional in the high-tech sector, asked me how many books I'd have to write before I could afford to retire. He had clearly missed the whole idea behind my struggle to write for a living, even though I tried to explain it to him.

I would never need to retire because I would be making a living doing something I actually enjoyed.

W was saying that activism and social change were about improving people's "quality of life" and he saw going to the movies, saw leisure time itself, as a sign of improvement. If we were successful people in the third world, in places like Afghanistan, would be able to afford occasional breaks from their jobs, breaks from their real lives.

His revolution was about giving everyone a life from which they could afford to retire.

What I was hoping for was changing the world, changing our lives, so that we might enjoy life itself. I wanted a world without leisure time, because I wanted a world without compulsory work.

This kind of thinking was deemed completely inappropriate inside of PPRC. It was so inappropriate that, at the time, I had difficulty communicating my ideas to people. I was constantly reaching the same impasse I'd met with W.

It was impossible to sell such utopian nonsense to the masses. Who would believe that such a life was possible? Who would become a member of a group that was that was so far outside the mainstream? Even the socialists were more down to earth.

PPRC was started in order to fight the propaganda of war, and was eventually poisoned by propaganda's derangement. It's a paradox. I don't know what should have been done differently. The Empire forces its form on its enemies. You can witness this truth every Friday evening at Pioneer Square.

Perhaps the only hope we have is to remain on our guard, to ask ourselves what we get out of participating in the propaganda system, to challenge ourselves to try to reconnect to reality, to life.

I'm not sure it's possible, but it's all we've got.

homepage: homepage: http://www.douglaslain.f2s.com

You're Nuts! 23.Jan.2004 14:50

Red Suspenders

PPRC gets the anti-war message out, and keeps people thinking about it.

We are all part of the "Empire" most of us cant do anything about it. The United States was the one remaining superpower after the collapse of the USSR. Now due to the criminal actions of Bush Regime we are rapidly becoming an international joke. This is our home and it's our responsibility to maintain it. This is not done by sitting around drinking coffee and talking about some bullshit "revolution". This is done by marching around downtown every week, beating drums and reminding people of the crimes being committed in our name.

Maybe your three second attention span cant deal with a scheduled activity which takes half an hour a day. Maybe you feel threatend because other people are a little more committed to a cause than you are.

Quit spouting off about "revolution" You just chase away all your allies. Violence is never a good answer You dont throw your bicycle off a bridge if it has a flat tire. Granted, The United States has been rode on the rims a hundred miles, and now it's crashed it into a damn tree and bent the forks. The frame is still the best the world has seen. Groups like PPRC want to rebuild it, You armchair "revolutionaries" would toss it in the nearest dumpster. Well, Mommy can buy you a new bike with her credit card, but nobody can buy us a new country. We'd better fix the one we've got.

dismantling the empire 23.Jan.2004 15:18

evolutionary

"most of us cant do anything about it"

Therein lies one of the problems of the PPRC and its supporters (and sadly many people in the united states); they voluntarily give up their own agency for change. There is always plenty to be done to extricate oneself from the empire, and to build alternative structures. There is more than anyone could possible do in a lifetime.

"The frame is still the best the world has seen"

If you are serious about real change you may find it immensely helpful to drop you nationalistic identity. The united states is far behind many nations in its democratic structures (electoral college, lacking proportional representation, lacking instant run off voting, a corporate dominated 2 part system, and the list goes on).

You can work toward reform if you want; many of us will continue to build the alternatives so we can leave this mess behind. If we use a more apt-analogy and compare the united states to a chemical factory rather than a bicycle many of us would rather see the factory shut down, not merely see it run by a new management who promises less pollution and better working conditions that never seem to materialize. And why else take over the factory which works to kill and enslave us if not to shut it down?

And revolution need not be violent; it can be merely the changing of minds in a way that changes the way people perceive the world and their place in it. It has happened before many times, and it is happening again today.

Built-in Opposition 23.Jan.2004 18:42

Author of Comment

Red Suspenders,

Your response to Doug's article is revealing. I suspect you are so defensively hostile because you have a personal interest in PPRC and its habitual tactics. You are doubtful about the validity or impact of PPRC's presence in a world so dominated by capitalism, media, and manufactured consent/apathy. While it's good to beat drums and tell people about the crimes committed in their name, it's also wise to guard against becoming a kind of BUILT IN OPPOSITION whose main priority is symbolic appearance.
I'm fine with you beating drums and spreading awareness about the U.S. regime's actions. But realize that there are those who see the peace movement as a mediocre, unchallenging, spurious opposition.
Doug is right that any real demand for peace has to incorporate anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian principles. Otherwise, we will be placed in the position of begging/demanding that 'our' misleaders behave ethically, when they are constrained do maintain the global capitalist system through violence first and foremost! NO--we need mass refusal and mutiny, not leaders in waiting reproducing the forms of the dominant society's forms of relating.

This is not a condemnation of everything the PPRC has done. It is mostly a reponse to Red Suspenders, and the others who are afraid of real community empowerment and the disruptive passions involved.

Built-in Opposition 23.Jan.2004 18:48

Author of Comment

Red Suspenders,

Your response to Doug's article is revealing. I suspect you are so defensively hostile because you have a personal interest in PPRC and its habitual tactics. You are doubtful about the validity or impact of PPRC's presence in a world so dominated by capitalism, media, and manufactured consent/apathy. While it's good to beat drums and tell people about the crimes committed in their name, it's also wise to guard against becoming a kind of BUILT IN OPPOSITION whose main priority is symbolic appearance.
I'm fine with you beating drums and spreading awareness about the U.S. regime's actions. But realize that there are those who see the peace movement as a mediocre, unchallenging, spurious opposition.
Doug is right that any real demand for peace has to incorporate anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian principles. Otherwise, we will be placed in the position of begging/demanding that 'our' misleaders behave ethically, when they are constrained do maintain the global capitalist system through violence first and foremost! NO--we need mass refusal and mutiny, not leaders in waiting reproducing the forms of the dominant society's forms of relating.

This is not a condemnation of everything the PPRC has done. It is mostly a reponse to Red Suspenders, and the others who are afraid of real community empowerment and the disruptive passions involved.

Keep on digging 23.Jan.2004 19:02

Bill

You are getting deep, Doug.

It sure is good to see you pulling stuff out of the mud, and holding it up to the light.

Imagine all those fellahin working their asses off all year so they can spend a week at Orlando DisneyWorld.

Weekly strength 23.Jan.2004 21:55

gk

I come to the weekly rally at the Square to stay strong with peace people in our opposition to the Iraq War. We also rally for labor issues, and learn updates of the national scene. We affirm ourselves vocally in chants and marching to the drum beats. I wouldn't miss it! The people I rally and march with, I have grown to love. Week after week, we will not crumble. We stand tall in our belief for a just, peaceful world. The PPRC has become a safe place to voice dissent.

Weakly strength 24.Jan.2004 00:40

Bill

"The PPRC has become a safe place to voice dissent."


Sometimes somebody gives you a straight-line which is so straight and narrow, you don't even need to glance back at them.

. 24.Jan.2004 08:47

.

"The PPRC has become a safe place to voice dissent."

If it is safe, that means it is doing nothing

Peace Song 24.Jan.2004 18:05

Peta Mni

Doug,

I was intrigued by your accounts of PPRC. I support your questioning and asking for more from your peace organization as stated in the desire to see activism towards the realization of a utopian society. Bravo! I certainly hope this happens for you, not to mention the rest of us. I have marched with PPRC on several occasions and have particulary enjoyed the larger demonstrations. I believe these are effective ways in which to give voice to peoples' frustrations and to allow them to seek solace and connections with others in the community.

I empathize with your concern regarding PPRC's role as educator and it's non-inclusive means of organizing. I have a story indicitve of this. Back in 2001 my partner and I had an encounter symptomatic of this approach. On one particular Friday we were huddled around the PPRC folk singer at Pioneer Square with song lyric leaflets in hand. We both really wanted to express ourselves through the music. We asked the guitarist if she'd be willing to lead Lennon's Give Peace A Chance. A request she flatly refused with, " I don't wanna do that one". Following that she launched into a rendition of Peace Train in some absolutely unreachable octive which left the crowd either silent or merely humming along. I asked myself, "If this is suppose to be a musical performance then why bother handing out lyrics?".

A bit frustrated and yet resolved we waited and hummed along too. During her break we started a lead of Give Peace A Chance which then the majority of the crowd began singing. We did this in the spirit of wanting or voices for peace to be heard. The guitarist at first seemed really annoyed that we had led a song on our own. Finally she half heartedly joined in and eventually the song ended quite naturally and on a good note between us (pun intended). Following that experience we both adjusted our expectations of PPRC accordingly. The impression this made was namely they wanted to lead the songs and either we sing along or shut the fuck up.

While I felt annoyed by that experiece it did not prevent me from joining in from time to time and appreciating PPRC's work. They're fulfilling a need and perhaps from their work other leaders will emerge, if sadly as a result of frustration. What may be overlooked here is the fostering of leadership in the community by more group participation. This requires various exercises in surrender of control and active mentoring. PPRC may not be the ones to do this however you sound very capable of it yourself.

Peace,
Peta

newsflash: it didn't start with GW jr. 26.Jan.2004 01:51

Orlando Furioso

Doug is obviously touching a nerve here. I respect people like Red Suspenders who go to the PPRC rallies regularly and thereby feel a sense of agency in trying to make a difference. But I also think Doug is spot-on, and is shining the light on some very uncomfortable truths about this country.

What kind of a country allows a petty despot to seize total power in a rigged election with nary a whimper? In other "less civilized" countries like Bolivia, this kind of shit would have people out on the streets en masse raising hell, occupying government buildings, putting their lives on the line for the sake of democracy and justice. Not here. The reason we now have a government like this one is due to a much deeper, more fundamental and malevolent pathology than the mere symptoms that are merely revealing themselves more clearly now than they did in the past.

The US is NOT a democracy. It never was. It was never even a true representative republic, but it has become even more antidemocratic and unrepresentative in recent decades. The US military and US intelligence apparatus has a blood drenched history that is, inexcusably, little known by most Americans. US society and cultural life has been hollowed out and lobotomized in the past half century to a shocking extent by a whole interlocking complex of cancerous forces, but especially corporate mass media, auto-centric suburban sprawl development, and the withering and vanishing of community-based economic and social institutions in favor of corporate conglomeration (McDonaldization or Walmartization as it is variously called). Working class people in the US have seen their quality of life and standard of living erode in both absolute and relative terms compared to those of Europe and other wealthy nations. The US is NOT "the best country" by any of numerous social and economic indicators. But, both tragically and predictably, the more apparent these facts become, the more frantic and hysterical becomes the propaganda campaign by corporate and government elites to chant and echo this slogan. Unfortunately, and worst of all, the increasing power of US-based economic and political elites, both military and governmental, is spreading the "US model," with all its flaws, around the world, with perilous implications for humanity.

I'm sorry to upset any apple carts, but denial won't help address the problem. Only a fearless, fierce, and unblinking stare will allow us to see and fully come to grips with the gravity of the problems we face.

I was the guitarist 09.Feb.2004 17:41

Red Emma redemma13@yahoo.com

It's always interesting to hear somebody else's perceptions of something I participated in. I was the guitarist at the event that "Peta" was talking about. I remember being asked to sing "All we are saying is give peace a chance," and replying that I personally didn't like that song and didn't want to sing it. Subsequently, the people that DID like that song began singing it. I declined to LEAD the song, I didn't say anybody else couldn't sing it. As I recall, at that event I was circulating through the crowd and working without a mike. So the only dominance I was exerting over the situation was a function of the fact of my singing voice carrying louder than some people's, and me being the only one who happened to have brought a guitar. The song sheets I brought were on my own initiative, not an "official" publication of PPRC (I always put my own name and contact info at the bottom), and were intended to be a starting point, not an "official" list of what was permitted.

I find it very revealing that I was perceived as The Guitarist, and some sort of authority figure as to what anybody else would be allowed to sing. This wasn't a question of refusing to share the mike. If I'd had a mike, I would have handed it over to whoever had a different song in mind and wanted to take a turn leading. Regardless of my personal feelings for the song, I'd have joined in on guitar if it hadn't been an a capella song. Musicians call this "sharing the lead," and it's something that everybody except the most uptight prima donnas knows how to do.

That's how it's SUPPOSED to be, folks. Everybody taking responsibility for their piece of the leadership, not complaining that somebody else is not making something happen. In this incident, the person involved did sing her song, but she says she left feeling unwelcome and shut out. I'm really sorry about this. Was it something I said? I'm asking this sincerely. I'm quite certain I didn't say, "Shut up, you can only sing what I tell you to sing." If there was something I said that came across as disempowering or authoritarian, please let me know so I can not say this in the future. I suspect that this all was more a function of our authoritarian society and the overall way PPRC events are perceived than anything I said on that one occasion, but please do let me know so I can take responsibility for my part of it.

By the way, is there anybody else who really doesn't like the song, "Give Peace a Chance"? I know for some people this song is powerful--Pete Seeger describes 100,000 people singing this song together at an anti-Vietnam-War rally as being one of the defining moments of his life. But to me this song is kind of simplistic, and has become fetishized in the public eye as a symbol of us as hippie-dippie flower children. I always feel vaguely embarrassed singing this song, so I won't take the lead on it. Besides, I believe in truth in song lyrics, and I think we are, in fact, saying a whole lot more besides "Give Peace a Chance."


Emma emma emma....I red you 20.Mar.2004 05:17

Peta Mni

Aho Red Emma!

"Peta" here and yes it is my real name and for clarity's sake, I am a male(!) not a female but thank you for the great compliment. And thank you too for bringing your guitar that day with song sheets no less! I only just today got back to my post here as I long since moved from Portland and only occassionally check this site to see what all you radicals are up to over on the mainland. (I find myself living in the Hawaiian islands these days but my heart still sings for Puddletown).

Hey and speaking of singing I am very glad to have your take on that day's muscial selection. I agree with you that Give Peace A Chance is a simple song and my partner who was with me that day, being vocally challenged yet by no means spiritually challenged, really really really wanted to connect with others through song and that song asked him to be sung. Bless him. And we did perceive you as a leader whether or not that was your intention. Give Peace A Chance is easily sung and shared, well known by many I believe so it seemed a natural, especially given the time (early into the invasion of Afghanistan) and hostility that surrounded us that night.

So hey, yes, does anyone remember this tune? Does any of this seem familiar? Can you say Vietnam?

Which brings me to another point in reflection upon your response, why is that words such as hippie (and liberal for that matter) have been turned into insults? And with them all their cultural connotations? Since when did these things become unacceptable? Did I miss something in the last 35 years (the length of my life)?

For me the word "hippie" means "living close to the earth and outside of societal confines". The hippies emergence on the political scene provided great support for Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Gay Rights which in turn brought about such wonders as Disability Rights etc. Hippies were shunned, hated, beaten and hunted down much like the promoters of peace today because they disagreed with the way things were. Historically this is how the dominate paradigm responds to challenges to the status quo. My concern is we will soon also discount the contributions of those such as Ghandi because he too is "out of fashion"? What is going on here? Have we forgotten history as it really happened?

On that note I was totally surprised that a folk singer, namely you, showed up that day at Pioneer Square. Why? Because I thought to myself that folk music no longer spoke to my feelings about the world's events. I was looking for the new forms of activism that I knew were bubbling under the surface such as the ones I had witnessed elsewhere when folks were challenging the WTO. A folk singer? "How vintage! How quaint!" I thought. Though I know now that singing the songs was very helpful to reconnect me to the work that was still to be done, that had yet to be completed and that perhaps someday, through all of our efforts, will be done.

I admit my passion for peace sometimes gets in the way of being at peace, with others and with myself. I have felt periods of incredibly hopelessness during the past year with our invasion of Iraq. Douglas' post struck a chord in me that's for sure. I apologize for anything I said that may have appeared as an attack on your sincere contribution to that day's peaceful demonstration. I cannot defend such behavior while still praying for peace in our time. I appreciate your hearing my frustration at wanting to be a part of things. It sounds like we may have much in common.

So keeping on singing sister (can I call you sister?) as I will sing as well. Tomorrow on the anniversary of the invasion I will be playing my drum, seated in a sweat lodge with my family and friends singing songs of thanksgiving and praying prayers for peace.

"This one's going out to you Red Emma...wherever you are".

Mitakuaye Oyasin

Peta Mni