[Peace-discuss] Last night's meeting

[Ricky Baldwin]

Hi folks-

Can I just start off by saying I understand why people
get frustrated over these kinds of things.  I do, too.
 But I do think we are having a discussion of the
issues.  Maybe email is a good way to get more said,
but I do think last Sundays’ discussion was a good
one.  I agree with Karen that it was good to discuss
the question of what gets AWARE’s official stamp
concretely rather than abstractly.  In fact, I like
the ‘temporary’ solution that Aaron and Matt came up
with very much -- much more than the one I spoke up
for originally -- so I’d like to propose that we take
it as a general way of proceeding in the future.

That is, when time doesn’t permit discussion at a
meeting, of course individuals are free to print and
distribute what they want on their own, with a
recommendation -- for practical purposes if nothing
else -- that in such cases it’s a good idea to include
contact info and/or time and date stuff for a few
local groups and/or info outlets, like AWARE,
Democracy Now!, News from Neptune, Media Matters, the
IMC, etc.  But we don’t really want AWARE listed
alone.  It makes sense, given the need to provide
folks a next step to take once they receive
potentially troubling info and given the serious
concerns folks have raised about effectiveness of our
organizing (or “outreach” if you prefer).

And I think it’s a good starting point for discussing
the other issues we are struggling with now.  I agree
with Carl that we need to focus on our common
objective, but I also think some careful discussion is
in order about the most effective way to do that.  We
could all learn something.  I agree wholeheartedly
with Linda that conflict resolution is in order.  It
doesn’t help us for everybody to just keep repeating
that it’s the others, or one other, who is the
problem.  The point is, we have to work it out.

On the issue of AWARE's name/image/publications-
I have always been an advocate of more flexibility
rather than less.  That’s why AWARE exists, in fact:
because a group of folks didn’t want to have their
hands tied by what they perceived as the PRC’s slowed
down approval processes for everything.  Linda makes
an excellent point about this.  Anarchist principles
are hard to get used to, but they have served us very
well.  We can act without going through painstaking
discussions ad infinitum, with the default always
being that nothing gets done unless folks can agree.

We do not ask for approval of signs -- although that
was discussed at one point when things got heated at
the Prospect for Peace demos.  We do not ask for
approval of press releases, letters to the editor
defending AWARE or critiquing politicians or
columnists, etc., or really of flyers, posters, or
PSAs.  We do not designate spokespeople to talk to the
press, nor do we give direction to folks who do talk
to the press (although some helpful advice might be in
order sometimes).  All these things directly impact
the image of the group in the public eye, but we try
our best to educate ourselves and each other to
eliminate any need or desire for such rigidity.  

We are stubborn about telling anyone, who asks what we
believe, that we are a diverse group.  And if anyone
asks how we operate, we often say we are loose, that
we have no officers or leadership as such, that
whenever a group of us wants to take the initiative to
work on something, the onus and the responsibility is
on them to put it together and carry it out (they are
free to ask for help and advice, of course).

One caveat is that we must be open to disagreement
over anything we do.  Before or after the fact.  We
must encourage disagreement, in fact, and accept it
graciously and in good humor (because that’s how you
encourage it).  We don’t have to agree at all.  Ever. 
But we must demonstrate that we are open to
difference.  That’s how we learn and grow, and how we
organize more effectively.

Of coures, when it comes to spending group funds, we
do expect agreement before it's done.  There is a
similarity in that to use of the group name, but it
isn't exact.

Frankly, I think we should be less jealous of our good
name (collectively and individually to be honest). 
Our names are not that important.  I think we should
be proud to be associated with people who are standing
up to this war and the general bullshit surrounding
it, the torture, the racism, the imperialism and the
vicious disregard for human life and human needs.  I
am, because that‘s what‘s really important.  We do not
have to agree.  With ANSWER, with AWARE or with the
Quakers or Muslims or anybody else.  We do not have to
be comfortable.  But we do need to be as effective as
humanly possible.

That means, again, that we encourage people to speak
up if they have something to say, that we take turns
doing so, that we not interrupt, that we not shout
each other down, that we not mock people we are trying
to work with, that we not jump out of our chairs in
anger or charge across the room any such behavior,
that we respect the facilitator’s efforts and if we
disagree with how the meeting is running that we take
the responsibility to raise that as a point for
discussion before the group.  It also means the
facilitator should not be arguing on one side or the
other of a discussion, but in the role of facilitator
as neutral as possible to *facilitate* discussion --
and disagreement as well as agreement, and dissent,
and practical nuts and bolts of how we proceed
constructively.

I was not at the meeting where some of the above
allegedly occurred.  I have been at meetings where
people have done similar things.  It is not conducive
to planning and carrying out AWARE’s goals, and it is
certainly not conducive to participation -- especially
by folks who may feel they are not well enough
informed to spar with intellectuals or confident
enough to disagree or question folks they thought were
on the same side who are shouting or mocking or
laughing at others in the group, certainly not folks
who are approaching others in a hostile pose.

In the labor movement, which is my background, there
is a lot of shouting and swearing and finger pointing.
 Physical confrontations are not unheard of.  But the
effect is mainly to secure a few people in control,
discourage dissent and ultimately participation, and
really to serve the bosses’ purpose rather than the
workers’.

I think we need to keep in mind what it is we want to
accomplish here and how we encourage others to join in
that.  We will not always agree, nor should we, but if
we cannot make our arguments rationally in a way that
others can understand and appreciate, that is
certainly frustrating.  I know what it is like to be
annoyed and feel that I am not expressing myself well
enough, or being heard or understood, or that I cannot
speak my mind without getting annoyed and defeating my
own purpose.  But I think we have to keep in mind,
again, what it is we are about.  That is not simply
being right all the time or feeling comfortable or
looking good in the public eye or being witty or
exciting controversy necessarily.  Any of these can be
good things, but only if we are being as effective as
we can be.

I was very glad to hear the discussion last Sunday and
the thought expressed by Stephen, a new member, that
we need to educate, not alienate.  I don’t think that
means we have to back away from any of our positions. 
If Obama or Lehrer, or Michael Moore, or Amy Goodman,
or David Kucinich, or anybody else needs public
critique for their positions, then we have a
responsibility to do that if we can.  Same goes for
other points that need raising, within the limits of
our abilities of course (we can’t do everything,
though we may try sometimes).  But we always want to
do that in the most effective way possible, reaching
frankly and honestly out to people who may be
potential allies (if they resent our POSITIONS, fine,
then let them, but let it not be because they are
reacting to our PRESENTATION, which is after all, or
should be, a secondary concern for us).

I personally did not have a big problem, for example,
with the Obama leaflet or anything else that occurred
at Obama’s dog and pony show.  If others think we
could be more effective in the future by doing things
differently, then by all means I want to discuss it. 
That’s how we improve.  But let’s not blame
individuals for their efforts, but thank them for
trying, and be constructive.  And let’s not be
oversensitive to criticism.

I’ve been trying to get AWARE to buy some balloons for
over two years now, and frankly I’m frustrated with
some of the arguments that have been raised against
the idea.  Some have some validity, in my opinion, and
others are not too persuasive.  But I will bring it up
again and won’t hold it against anybody who disagrees.
 Hell, I’m wrong myself a lot of the time, I know.  If
I weren’t, I would never learn anything.  I’d just be
stuck.  Same for AWARE, I think.

When these issues do get personal, I think it’s time
for conflict resolution.  Not taking group time away
from group projects to discuss individual behavior or
misbehavior.  We can be open about the fact that we
are having conflicts without turning that conflict
into something destructive to our goals.

For example, I disagree with Al that we should treat
black politicians differently -- except of course that
we should treat every person as an individual, and
everyone including every politician has his or her own
constraints and it’s pointless for us to try to weed
out every failing of every one, but we need to focus
on the best way to advance an anti-war and antiracist
agenda.  The guest editorial that Carl wrote could
have been such a means, in my opinion, until it came
to mentioning AWARE (or any other specific group) in
association with some pretty serious charges.  I think
this is very harmful to the effort to get more people
involved in anti-war anti-racist efforts generally,
and particularly to the effort to bring people
together who may be working on one of these but not
(yet) the other.  I think it’s important to discuss
these issues as a group, but not to (in my opinion)
use the group as a sounding board for our personal
conflicts, even if those conflicts are partly or
wholly political.

It is possible of course that I am being too harsh. 
If so,  I apologize.  But I hope that if I’ve chosen
bad examples to illustrate my point, that we can still
see the point.  I also hope I haven’t offended anybody
personally.  I realize that a problem with email is
that you can’t see facial expressions or hear tone of
voice.  I don’t deny some frustration and concern over
this issue.  I think that’s appropriate under the
circumstances.  But I really don’t mean to blame
anybody, just to try to help us take this opportunity
to improve our efforts and not get bogged down when
the work we do is so sorely needed.  I really mean
that.

And of course, I welcome disagreement or concern,
etc., especially if it may help me and/or us figure
this all out.

And if you get this far, I think you deserve a medal. 
Let me know, and I’ll maybe make you some cookies or
something.

Ricky


--- Linda Evans <veganlinda at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Karen, thank you for you thoughtful email.  Al, I am
> so sorry that you don't see a need for conflict
> resolution in AWARE.  I was so upset (not for the
> same
> reasons) after last night's meeting myself that I
> drafted a "resignation" letter as Treasurer and
> thankfully did not send it.  Today, I am ready to
> work
> on things instead of throwing in the towel.  
> 
> I know many people (most whom I would call my
> friends)
> in AWARE who have been disruptive and rude from time
> to time...I include myself.    We are dealing with
> big
> issues and we all feel strongly.  In every activist
> group I've been involved in there have been problems
> like this from time to time.  We will disagree with
> how things should be worded, we will disagree with
> how
> things should be handled, we will disagree...this is
> unavoidable and I believe shouldn't be avoided.  I
> would be very worried if we all agreed 100% of the
> time.
> 
> AWARE, as long as I've been involved, has always had
> working groups so if people disagreed with one
> project
> they don't work on it and focus their energy on
> something else.  It was hard to get used to
> "anarchy"
> for me at first, but now I feel very protective of
> it.
>  I don't think AWARE will be the organization I am
> happy to be a part of if we start to get bogged down
> in rules and etiquette.  
> 
> During the heated protests on N. Prospect when the
> anti-peace people were there I did not agree with
> every sign.  I felt some signs and some actions
> probably turned people away from AWARE and our
> message.  I was happy that we didn't censor anyone
> because people will listen to different things,
> different actions strike a cord with different
> people..what turns one person off will be the one
> thing that touches another's heart.
> 
> I am not worried at all about AWARE being divided. 
> I
> would hope we are never all together on much besides
> being anti-war and anti-racism.   We won't grow if
> we
> all agree or never debate.
> 
> The reason I'm calling for conflict resolution is
> because of the personal attacks.  Carl could be
> banned
> and we would still have conflict in AWARE.  I amazed
> by the people using him as a scape goat.  All along
> we
> should have been discussing how to handle situations
> like the Obama meeting in an more effective way next
> time instead of slapping individual members on the
> wrist.  Please!  Where does that get us?  Where we
> are
> now.  I was not at the Obama event or the meeting
> where people apparently jumped from their chairs and
> ran across the room in a menacing gesture or where
> people interrupted the facilitator who apparently
> felt
> very strongly about the discussion and was maybe not
> extremely neutral.  I wasn't there, but I respect
> and
> care about all the people involved in these actions.
> 
> I think they are all important to AWARE and did the
> best they could at the time.  Am I disappointed that
> AWARE was mentioned in the N-G in such a way?  Sure.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that AWARE's reputation will be okay
> and I hope yours will too.  I am more scared of
> AWARE
> censoring our members than what Carl might write
> next.
> 
> Al, what do you want?  I am in no hurry to rehash
> personal attacks against Carl or against you.  I
> trust
> that we are all adults and can get past that and if
> we
> can't them I think we need mediation.  Do you want
> to
> discuss new ways we can address members of our
> government when they come to town?  I am all ears. 
> Do
> you want to discuss how we can be more sensitive to
> others in the anti-war community?  I am all ears. 
> Do
> you want to discuss how we can work on our
> anti-racism
> effort?  I am all ears.  
> 
> Linda
> --- Alfred Kagan <akagan at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I want to say that I was very disappointed and
> > frustrated at last 
> > night’s meeting.  AWARE has now gone two weeks
> since
> > one of our 
> > influential members not only disrupted our
> meeting,
> > but was 
> > extraordinarily rude and disrespectful to the
> > facilitator, and 
> > continually interrupted several members of the
> group
> > who voiced 
> > critical opinions. He then went on to publish
> > divisive comments in the 
> > N-G which misrepresented and distorted my views
> and
> > brought disrepute 
> > on the group.  Since these kinds of interactions
> are
> > nothing new, and 
> > have occurred every few months (with somewhat less
> > intensity), I am 
> > mystified by this lack of action.
> > 
> > It appears that some members of AWARE are not
> taking
> > this seriously 
> > enough.  Some are calling for “conflict
> resolution”
> > rather than 
> > addressing the need for respectful interactions
> and
> > personal 
> > accountability.  Some are ready to put this in the
> > past, or put it off 
> > as long as possible.  Some are afraid of
> “dividing”
> > the group.
> > 
> > In case anyone is not aware, the group is already
> > divided.  A 
> > principled discussion is not going to further
> divide
> > us.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Al Kagan
> > African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of
> > Library Administration
> > University of Illinois Library
> > 1408 W. Gregory Drive
> > Urbana, IL 61801
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com