[Peace-discuss] Guest commentary

Mon Sep 5 09:27:55 CDT 2005

I'm glad Al agrees with much of the commentary, but he's wrong
that the ending is an “attack on [him], AWARE and the anti-war
movement.”  He's quite right to oppose “intertwining the
issues with personal attacks” -- there is none in the article.
 His affirmation of his opposition to the war and US
imperialism (and that he's not a liberal) is unnecessary,
because it's not denied in the article.

But the article is not a discussion of strategy and tactics,
as Al says.  Instead, it asserts two points: [1] Senator's
Obama's position on the war is not significantly different
from the administration's; and [2] those who scant this fact
because he's black are wrong to do so.  

The latter point seems to me to be what the argument in AWARE
has been about since the senator's visitation. I admit that
people who have held that position have been curiously
reluctant to say so clearly, probably because it's rather
obviously untenable.  But that was surely the implication of
the long complaint Imani Bazell delivered to an AWARE meeting
after the Obama demonstration, and some members of AWARE
seemed to me sympathetic to that view.  If however no one
holds it, it's all the more clear that the article is not an
attack on AWARE and the anti-war movement; rather, it is what
it says it is –- an attack on “Liberals who fail to say [a
senator has blood on his hands] because  of the senator's race.”  

Al says that no one in AWARE “wants to give Senator Obama a
pass on his war position.” If so, the insistence that
leafleting Obama's rally was “rude” to him, or that the
leaflet “demonizes” him, sounds a bit strange.  Would the same
be said of a white politician?  I thought this was an anti-war
movement, trying to tell people (the audience, not the
politician) things that they don't want to hear. 

Al says “we can’t afford to alienate many in this [black]
community with a sledgehammer approach” (which seems to mean
distributing a leaflet describing the senator's views).  If
we're opposing the war on principle (and not because, say,
it's bad for business) we can't trim our views to our
audience. The only exception that comes immediately to mind is
talking to children; but to talk to adults that way is to
infantilize or patronize them.  If we intentionally don't
speak candidly about what we think,  we're being hypocritical;
“giving a pass” to a black senator because he's black would be
what's been called reverse racism.

I'm sorry Al felt it necessary to stay away from the meeting.
Working against this murderous war is too important for
either of us to give much space for our personal likes and
dislikes.  Worse yet, to turn away from the goals of AWARE -–
an anti-war anti-racism effort -– to “work through its
internal process,” would be a shame.  AWARE, begun as a way to
be concerned about the world, would have become a way of being
concerned about AWARE.  And the implied threat of “we must be
able to confront the situation and put it right (when our
norms and guidelines are ignored)” suggests that's happening.

--Carl

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:24:43 -0500
>From: Al Kagan <akagan at uiuc.edu>  
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest commentary  
>To: Peace-Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>I want to respond to Carl Estabrook’s guest commentary on
page  B-3 of 
>today’s News-Gazette. While I agree with much of the
commentary, I 
>think the ending is a gratuitous attack on me, AWARE and the
anti-war 
>movement.
>
>Let me say upfront, that I have never been interested in
personalizing 
>our discussions of strategy and tactics. Intertwining the
issues with 
>personal attacks is a recipe for failure.  We must be able to 
>critically evaluate our activities, and those who see and
respond to 
>criticism as personal attacks should re-evaluate the effects
of their 
>actions.
>
>One must ask why a discussion about our strategy and tactics
must be 
>aired in public in the local newspaper?  Let me repeat a
little of my 
>original thoughts here. We have an African-American Senator
who is very 
>popular in the black community. If we want to do local
anti-racist 
>work, we can’t afford to alienate many in this community with a 
>sledgehammer approach.  We ought to try to engage this
politician and 
>appeal to his own self-interest.  We should argue that
according to the 
>polls, his constituents and especially the black community
are ahead of 
>him and want an end to this war.
>
>It was very clear at the AWARE meeting that nobody wants to give 
>Senator Obama a pass on his war position.  Coming to the
personal 
>level, the great majority of those who know me even a little
would 
>laugh at the author’s assertion, “Liberals who fail to say so
[Obama 
>“has blood on his hands”] because of the senator’s race find
themselves 
>supporting the war.”   My opposition to the war and US
imperialism is 
>not in question, and I don’t consider myself a “liberal.”
>
>Finally, to call the above argument, “…patronizing or
hypocritical, if 
>not racist” is beyond the bounds of principled debate.
>
>It seems to me that we have a set up for another shouting
match at 
>today’s meeting, therefore I will not be there.  AWARE needs
to work 
>through it’s internal process for having principled
discussions.  When 
>our norms and guidelines are ignored, we must be able to
confront the 
>situation and put it right.  If we can’t do this, we will not
be able 
>to advance our work.
>
>
>
>Al Kagan
>Africana Unit, Room 328
>University of Illinois Library
>1408 W. Gregory Drive
>Urbana, IL 61820
>USA
>
>tel. 217-333-6519
>fax 217-333-2214
>akagan at uiuc.edu
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss