[Peace-discuss] Guest commentary

[C. G. Estabrook]

Dan--

Regarding “the AWARE reference in [my] article” on Sunday: it
has the elementary quality of being accurate, but beyond that
I agree with your strictures against it.  That's why I
attacked it. 

The entire “AWARE reference” is as follows: “A member of the
Champaign-Urbana anti-war group, AWARE, recently wrote, “...we
need to treat black politicians differently than white
politicians.'”

The author of that remark (who is not named in my piece) says
that no one in AWARE “wants to give Senator Obama a pass on
his war position.”  I hope that's true, but it certainly
seemed to me, from the discussions in AWARE after Obama's town
meeting, that there were people associated with AWARE who
thought he needed to be treated differently from white
politicians holding the same views.  Even as a matter of
strategy or tactics, as well as principle, that seemed to me
wrong, for reasons I set out in an earlier post.

I wrote the piece to try to dissuade people in AWARE or
sympathetic to it to reject such a view: as the headline
writer aptly put it “Liberals must call Obama on his support
for war” (although we might quibble about “liberal”).  I agree
with you that one might hesitate “to join or be associated
with such an organization/to attend events sponsored by such
an organization/advocate for its programs” if it embraced that
position.
 
But I think you've got it backwards when you say AWARE should
“Spend less time figuring out what your positions are on
Obama, and more time figuring out how to limit the damage to
AWARE.”  That sounds like an advertising campaign, when one of
things AWARE exists for is to help cut through the fog of
government, media and academic attempts “to cover sin with
smooth names,” as the Hebrew bible has it.  Figuring out what
a correct position is on Obama and other politicians takes
effort, and it's exactly the sort of effort we should be
exerting. 

AWARE as an organization can't be substituted for an anti-war
anti-racism effort. A large part of that effort is trying to
figure out what “peacemaking” means.  It's not obvious. 
Everyone for example is in favor of peace in Iraq -– the
administration is, the insurgents are, and of course our
senators are -– but on their terms.  It's worthwhile
clarifying what those terms are. 

As a churchman, you're probably familiar with classic tag,
fiat justitia ruat coelum -- let justice be done though the
heavens fall.  As “a friend of AWARE” and an “advocate in
[your] church for many of the programs that AWARE has been
instrumental in bringing to CU,” you should join us in that
effort.

Regards, Carl


---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:45:40 -0500
>From: "Dan Schreiber" <dan at sourcegear.com>  
>Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest commentary  
>To: "Al Kagan" <akagan at uiuc.edu>, "Peace-Discuss"
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>   I've considered myself a friend of AWARE for about a
>   year and a half, and have advocated in my church for
>   many of the programs that AWARE has been
>   instrumental in bringing to CU.  I appreciate the
>   energy you all put into projects that attempt to
>   make the world a better place.  As somewhat of an
>   outsider, I thought my impressions might be valuable
>   to you.
>    
>   I was very disappointed in the AWARE reference in
>   Carl's article today.   Whether intentional or not,
>   and whether true or not, it implicated AWARE as a
>   place containing people who hold patronizing,
>   hypocritical and racist views, based on a single
>   sentence within a long letter advocating more
>   caution and respect towards Obama.  For those who
>   don't know much about AWARE, or those who share many
>   of the same values as AWARE, this is the exact
>   opposite impression that should be given.  Why would
>   anyone want to join or be associated with such an
>   organization?  Why would anyone want to attend
>   events sponsored by such an organization?  Why would
>   I want to advocate for your programs in my own
>   circles if this is the impression your own members
>   are making to the public? 
>    
>   Something like this goes beyond disagreements about
>   Obama, and I'm not involved enough to know what they
>   are.  But, I would beg you all to spend less time
>   figuring out what your positions are on Obama, and
>   more time figuring out how to limit the damage to
>   AWARE that the disagreements are causing, or at
>   least figure out a way to go your separate ways
>   without publicly undermining the very values of
>   peacemaking that you have so energetically advocated
>   for the last few years.
>    
>   Peace,
>   Dan Schreiber