[Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend

Sat Feb 19 23:50:04 CST 2005

Phil--

You pass over in silence my suggestion about the fundamental way in which
racial prejudice is bound up with the war.  It's not primarily a matter of
"racial issues in the Champaign/Urbana community." (And is that in fact
what the conference was about?)

Regards, Carl

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Phil Stinard wrote:

> 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
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 