[Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend

[Phil Stinard]

Hi Carl,

I don't object to the majority of the points you make below, but my 
intentions were not to be condescending or to lie about intentions to sell a 
product to the black community.  I wasn't suggesting that people lie in 
order to get along.  I merely suggested that it should be possible to work 
on common issues, and to be honest about differences on other issues, but 
work on them on the side.  It's a matter of approach.  If you want to 
present a list of issues and then say you can't work with the other group 
unless they agree to all issues, not much will be accomplished.  That said,  
having heard Bevel speak, I'm glad that AWARE didn't endorse Forgiveness 
Weekend because Bevel opposes many things that AWARE stands for, and 
supports many things that AWARE opposes--homophobia, sexism, and theocracy, 
for example.  Someone made the comment to me that Bevel's participation in 
Forgiveness Weekend is a perfect way to destroy coalitions, and I 
reluctantly agreed.

Finally, you said, "But misrepresenting what we think -- and failing to find 
out what those we're talking to think -- can rarely if ever be an effective 
strategy for 'reaching out,' it seems to me; and it doesn't seem to me an 
honest one. For AWARE, the most effective outreach would seem to be to say 
-- through a cacophony of propaganda -- that this war is wrong and that 
something should be done about it.  That's what I think brought most of the 
people in AWARE to it in the first place."

Clearly, my intention in going to Forgiveness Weekend was to "find out what 
those we're talking to think."  Secondly, we're not AWE (Anti-War Effort), 
we're AWARE (Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort).  I think that racial issues in 
the Champaign/Urbana community need to be discussed.  We can talk about our 
conceptions of what we think those issues are, but I'd still like to hear 
Aaron (and others) out.

--Phil

PS -- Thanks for admitting your difficulty in listening for information--I 
had mistaken it for laziness.  You seem to have gotten the basic idea of 
what Forgiveness Weekend was about, and picked up on the idea of 
"forgiveness" as being a metaphor for changes in the law.  I won't rehash 
the things that you said in previous posts that could be construed as 
"attacking the Weekend."  It's not worth it, and I think we're on the same 
wavelength now.

>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
>To: Phil Stinard <pstinard at hotmail.com>
>CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend
>Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:55:41 -0600
>
>In my dotage, Phil, I find my ability to listen declining faster than my
>ability to read (although that's the division of labor I've had for years
>with my radio partner, Paul Mueth: he listens to politicians, I prefer to
>look at the transcript.)  But I must say that the point of the
>"Forgiveness Weekend" has puzzled me from the beginning, whether I look or
>whether I listen.
>
>I agree with many of our AWARE associates that the "war on drugs" --
>namely, the laws and legal practices such as sentencing that afflict those
>who possess and use some "controlled substances" -- is primarily a means
>of social control and should be ended.  That non-violent drug offenders
>suffer unjust disabilities after prison also seems to be the case, but
>when I ask what disabilities the Weekend is campaigning to remove (and for
>whom), I get some illustrations; when I ask for specifics, I'm told I'm
>attacking the Weekend...
>
>Asking for the end of some legal disabilities for that particular group of
>felons (if that is what the weekend is asking -- which was my question) is
>worthwhile, if perhaps peripheral.  (E.g., ineligibility for scholarships
>for those with drug convictions is wrong, but that demands a change in the
>way that particular law is written, rather than "forgiveness.")
>
>Your formulation of the Weekend's purpose ("Asking the state and society
>to forgive felons' mistakes and give them a chance at a job and housing")
>seems much more sweeping.  In principle such penal reform seems also to be
>necessary, but here again and even more the specifics are important.
>That's the question I tried to take up with Randall.
>
>And I have no general objection to a "strong religious undercurrent."
>Analyzing such things was what I did for a living.  And I think "personal
>objections to peoples' religious [political, ethical. etc.] beliefs"
>should be discussed, and not just privately.  That's what I meant to do
>with my questions about the Weekend (and its keynote speaker). I would
>deny that I'd "simply discard a group of people out of hand because [I]
>disagree with some of their viewpoints."  Nor do I think that such
>objections can be reduced to "belittling particular leaders."
>
>I do find some of the exhortations that AWARE must "reach out to the black
>community" to contain an element of condescension (or, in the approved
>locution, "unconscious racism"). AWARE is opposed to the present war,
>which is accompanied by -- although it doesn't arise from -- a corrosive
>racial prejudice. Prejudice against "Arabs [the term is used quite
>loosely] like Osama bin Laden" is the principal way young Americans (black
>and white, of course) are convinced to carry out horrible crimes in
>support of US economic dominance -- and the way the American populace is
>convinced to support those crimes (to the extent that they do). Black
>Americans are individually as able to see this point as white Americans
>are -- and statistically perhaps more so, because USG internal propaganda
>is addressed primarily to the upper quarter of the socio-economic ladder
>(a point illustrated in the presidential election).
>
>I was unpleasantly surprised by a similar condescension among those
>working in the local Green party campaign for Congress two years ago. Much
>time was spent by folks who saw themselves a good liberals in wondering
>how to "market" the campaign to conservative and rural voters in the
>district -- roughly, how to lie to them about what the campaign stood for.
>"Tell the truth and shame the devil" seemed to me the better advice.  (My
>adversaries in the campaign would say that the vote totals showed the
>effect of that advice.)
>
>But misrepresenting what we think -- and failing to find out what those
>we're talking to think -- can rarely if ever be an effective strategy for
>"reaching out," it seems to me; and it doesn't seem to me an honest one.
>For AWARE, the most effective outreach would seem to be to say -- through
>a cacophony of propaganda -- that this war is wrong and that something
>should be done about it.  That's what I think brought most of the people
>in AWARE to it in the first place.
>
>Regards, Carl
>
>PS: Thanks for the second-hand reports.
>
>
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Phil Stinard wrote:
>
> > Carl, do you really think you'd be satisfied with secondhand reports?
> > Why don't you go and listen for yourself?  Clifford Thornton provided
> > a realistic humanist counterpoint to Bevel's religious extremism, and
> > I have to say that it was great hearing a variety of viewpoints
> > presented.  It was also nice seeing Bevel patiently listening to what
> > Thornton had to say.  Kudos to Aaron for setting this up.
> >
> > As far as forgiveness goes, it's pretty clear that there were at least
> > two aspects presented:  (1) Asking the state and society to forgive
> > felons' mistakes and give them a chance at a job and housing, and (2)
> > the felons asking society's forgiveness and changing their lives
> > around.  There was a strong religious undercurrent in some of the
> > speakers' presentation, but remember that the event was held in a
> > church, and many of the people who spoke are ministers.
> >
> > AWARE could do a better job of reaching out to the black community,
> > and could do it without endorsing religious content, and by the same
> > token, without belittling particular leaders.  It could be done by
> > working on areas of agreed common interests.  You can't simply discard
> > a group of people out of hand because you disagree with some of their
> > viewpoints--otherwise, you'd discard everyone and never get anything
> > done.  Personal objections to peoples' religious beliefs can be
> > discussed privately on a one-on-one basis--I think it's the only way
> > that you can effectively change someone's beliefs or at least make
> > them see your point of view.
> >
> > --Phil
> >
> > >Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:06:13 -0600
> > >From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
> > >Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend program schedule
> > >To: Randall Cotton <recotton at earthlink.net>
> > >Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > >Message-ID:
> > >	<Pine.SGI.4.10.10502181503570.801471-100000 at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
> > >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > >
> > >I'll be interested in hearing, at the conclusion of the weekend, if 
>people
> > >are any clearer on what forgiveness is being asked.  --CGE
> >
>