bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
Is NR......NO.....Searchlighty spoily dont thinky so
Beating the Fascists: The authorised history of Anti-Fascist Action
- Thread starter cogg
- Start date
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
Sorry mal I meant ever referenced in any of these other books....or even once mentioned/reviewed/wanked over by S/light/HnH/blah blah....or other 'establishment' outfits?...nay laddie!.
malatesta32
Not Serb. No, Really!
i wd have thought NR wd be completely ignored by the likes of goodwin etc. i certainly dont think NR writes AFA out of history, on the contrary, it places AFA right in the middle of things (copsey quotes NR in 1 of his books i think). this is why it is important. like ive said loads, there aint enough militant history out there and it all needs documenting either in the more complex process of book form, the AFA archive or personal testament. there is a new generation of AFers and they need to know their history. class dismissed!
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the primary reason the 'break up of AFA' in No Retreat rankles is that there was no such break up. It was an entirely political confabulation designed to meet the personal needs of one of the authors. To that end in numerous interviews thereafter the founder members were denounced by him as 'cowards who had betrayed the anti-fascist movement'. AFA is itself traduced for failing to drive the far-right from the streets as was its intention and thus quitting the struggle prematurely. Both bang-out lies.
As many on here will testify the real narrative is covered only in BTF (which faced sutained threats of legal action as soon as it found a publisher) and faces the situation now where the real version of events is likely to be trumped by 'No Retreat with a Vengeance' where presumably the arguments advanced by Hann in his first book will be finessed in order to maintain the fiction that Hann was a key AFA/ANL/Squad (?) founding member brought low by lesser mortals for entirely 'sectarian' reasons, thus allowing the BNP a free run. Or to put it another way, AFA failed. AFA lost. What message does that send young would be militants?
As Demu puts it, history is there to inform. If it deliberately misinforms, if it sets out to smear the lens, it is not history. And when its gets it retaliation in first, the inevitable result is deep rancour between the opposing viewpoints and certain degree of confusion amongst near everyone else.
One product of the confusion, and which adds considerably to it, is the depiction of the disagreement as a 'spat' of interest to only a tiny number of individuals. As if the discussion for what of a better word has no resonance outside of this forum. The conclusion and indeed considerable comfort that will be drawn from that line by some, (step forward Professor Purbick) is that the historical truth is also of interest to only a tiny number, and that being the case we are all free to create our own history.
Infamously, accounts from the ANL, Socialist Party and Searchlight have already for example, in covering the period in question (early 80'sto late 1990's) omitted AFA entirely. A photograpical history of resistance to fascism in the East End has seemingly no record of the 4,000 strong AFA march through Bethnal Green, (which specific subject matter apart, is likely to have been one of the biggest political gatherings in the borough for many decades) either. Odd really when you consider that the marchers were temporarily blinded by the flash bulbs as the march too off. And so it goes on.
Each false history feeds on to the next.
Malatesta has argued that 'No Retreat puts AFA at the centre of things'. But as it offers no political context or backdrop for what is happening elsewhere 'putting AFA at the centre of things' is what it markedly fails to do.
What it does do is to put Hann at the centre of AFA which is an entirely different matter.
Putting Hann 'at the centre of things' is no doubt the purpose of the latest offering too. Not only does it rankle, but this false history, is threatning (thinking here of Gable's autobiography in particular) to develop a momentum all of it's own.
As someone once put it: 'Just because your right dosen't mean you can't be beaten'.
malatesta32
Not Serb. No, Really!
'the real narrative is covered only in BTF ' there is absolutely no doubt that this is the only definitive version so far but will not be the only valid one. the interpretation of history is subjective. you cannot have a monopoly on it as it is only opinion that says 'this is the best 1.' what is the only real narrative of the spanish civil war for example, or irish struggle? also hann's account is from an AFA perspective and i would agree that it is contextually weak. his new book by the way is not NR 2. review in freedom in the new year!
Are there rumours he is still alive and in hiding on the Isle of Sheppey or something?
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
I hear the weather's a bit muggy there
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
As it goes, I was reading '70 Years of Community Resistance' last week, and apart from one photo (with reference to 'AFA activists'), there wasn't if I recall a single mention of any of AFA/RAs existence, let alone work.
Now, even appreciating big differences in approach by groups like ANL/Searchlight to AFA/RA towards how to combat fascism/racism, I can completely understand how this must really piss off those of you involved in AFA/RA - it's historical whitewashing. And given the reach/visibility of the likes of Searchlight/Hope Not Hate, I can see why that's a problem when people rely on their accounts of anti-fascism history.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
That's Jim Morrison
mug4life
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
I can't play the video because my internet is fucked - is that Bob Mills?
Not seen him on TV for ages
Not seen him on TV for ages
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Aye, tis Millsy
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that the BTF might be the only interpretation. What I'm saying is is that BTF is the only account so far to try (Copsey for instance, though more accurate than most, other than scanning FT's and the odd copy of RA didn't really try) and establish the facts. Once the facts are established you can be as subjective as you like. The strategic importance of this or that activity in terms of the eventual outcome or in terms of how this or that strategy might be adapted for future use can be held up to the light and scrutinised from ever concievable direction. Nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone is entitled to comment. More power to your elbow and all that. Interpreting the facts is the name of the game. However, deliberately altering the results to meet either personal or political requirments has to be regarded as verboten, and should moreover be publicly condemned. Simple as that. Otherwise it ceases to be history and becomes propaganda, party and otherwise, with the biggest loser in all of it being anti-fascism itself.
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
Yeah hilarious...
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
Thought better of you...
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
Actually wasnt sure youd get involved but obviously too tempting.....well done
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Who is promoting/sponsoring it these days?
I thought you would have appreciated the pun
malatesta32
Not Serb. No, Really!
i'm just doing welling. anyone got info or good reports etc apart from BBC/ITN and those pesky 'left wing troublemakers'?
malatesta32
Not Serb. No, Really!
this is the WIA job on militant antifascists
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
I remember reading quite a good account of Welling at the time which had a few diagrams in showing how the police blocked off the march. It may come to me.
There is a brief critical summary at the end of this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060925215629/http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/rpm/anl.html
(which as it says was originally published as a pamphlet by the Colin Roach Centre).
There is a brief critical summary at the end of this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060925215629/http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/rpm/anl.html
(which as it says was originally published as a pamphlet by the Colin Roach Centre).
malatesta32
Not Serb. No, Really!
bloody hell i aint seen that for a while fozzie! thanks loads! i remember the diagrams piece too. bit like dad's army opening sequence.
malatesta32
Not Serb. No, Really!
can anyone help supply a chronology post-AFA? just finishing up on welling, waterloo 2 and BNP withdrawal from streets and onto 'respectable BNP.' any key events before 2010 that folk know of? cheers Mal!
Red Storm
M14
The recent history has been pretty boring other than the split.
Leigh Bridge incident
-- just seen the year was 2009.He's got a claw hammer in his head,
He's got a claw hammer in his head,
etc...
malatesta32
Not Serb. No, Really!
ah yes, tony 'hammerhead' ward, the cross dressing 'race mixer!' nice guy!
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Half way through this now, having done half during a 6 hour bus journey. Enjoying, a good account of a history that never gets spoken of in the mainstream.
two questions though:
What does it profit the liberal left to so undermine street action at that time? Other than lovely money from labour and so on, where comes the disdain and attempts to outflank in the political sphere? I can't see any downside for these people. They have a deniable militant wing- people willing and able to do the dirty work. So why saddle up High Horse McHigh? Why did Searchlight act as they did?
on a less headscratching but more info asking point: can anyone recc a decent and and accurate account from the other side? I'm sure some must have been mentioned in thread but its long and I haven't the search terms
two questions though:
What does it profit the liberal left to so undermine street action at that time? Other than lovely money from labour and so on, where comes the disdain and attempts to outflank in the political sphere? I can't see any downside for these people. They have a deniable militant wing- people willing and able to do the dirty work. So why saddle up High Horse McHigh? Why did Searchlight act as they did?
on a less headscratching but more info asking point: can anyone recc a decent and and accurate account from the other side? I'm sure some must have been mentioned in thread but its long and I haven't the search terms
I'm thinking that their primary fear was of wild and uncontrolled streets - whether the wildness was that of fascists or of others.
Similar threads
