[Peace-discuss] The last two weeks

[Gabriel Stanton]

Hello everyone,

   I just want to stand in support of Susan's
statement. I know I haven't been to AWARE meetings
much in the past year and thus I don't have the whole
picture. t I'd like to think that I was still part of
the group and proud of the things that we've
accomplished together.  It doesn't matter which of us
has organized more events or which of us is more up to
date on news and  or the opinions of free thinking
intellectuals. It matters what  we are doing to sway
the public's opinions of  what  is  truly going on in
the government and what we as citizens can do to
ameliorate the collective suffering of people that are
feeling the consequences. Right now as I see it we are
faced with a situation where people are concerned more
about their own ideas then about the effects of their
behavior on the perceptions and reputations of others.
If we in the group profess to care about peace then it
is my suggestion that  certain members of the group
approach others with a humble heart and assure them
that they won't continue to talk over them or use
their thoughts out of context. I seem to remember that
Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tse and other influential figures
stressed that greatness can only be acheived through
humility. 
       On the other hand, I also believe that we
should be free to disagree. But given that statement
we should have qualifiers such as the giving the
authors names and saying that they are members of
AWARE but don't represent the diversity of opinions if
there isn't consensus like the WEFT disclaimer.
However I suggest that there must be at least 4 people
at the meeting who support the statement before it can
be made even as a working group of AWARE. But above
all we should respect each other for whatever opinions
we have because we all bring something to the table.  
 
      In the meantime I  personally think that we
should have a positive presence in  the public helping
people like  contributing food to flood victims or
reminding people to call Tim Johnson and protest the
proposed cuts to programs meant to help the poor. 
Right now being AWARE isn't enough to keep us afloat.


Very respectfully,

Gabriel Stanton






> Folks,
> 
> I haven't been to an AWARE meeting in a few weeks
> because I've been 
> downhearted about what's happening in the group. 
> I'm very concerned about 
> the way we are acting as a group and also concerned
> about the way we are 
> representing ourselves publicly.  I've learned a
> huge amount by working 
> with AWARE, so before I throw in the towel I would
> like to give my thoughts.
> 
> --. the only way we get anything done at all,
> whether it is clarifying 
> positions or organizing an event is when people can
> be polite and 
> respectful to each other, even kind, when there are
> disagreements of 
> principal, tactics or strategy.  This kind mutual
> respect and hard 
> listening has broken down badly and the breakdown is
> extremely 
> damaging.  It's not been a question of everyone
> talking at once, but a 
> question of really hostile and nasty behavior, both
> in meetings and in 
> Carl's article in the News Gazette.  it's not
> scapegoating Carl to point 
> out that he was extremely mean and disrespectful to
> Carol when she 
> facilitated the meeting two weeks ago.  I don't need
> to come to an AWARE 
> meeting for this kind of hostile interaction -- I
> can go to a faculty 
> meeting any day of the week and see people behaving
> badly.  If folks in the 
> group don't understand why that would be a problem
> for the ongoing work of 
> the group, then it is not an effective group that I
> can participate in.	
> 
> --I think it's elementary kindness and politeness
> not to quote people in 
> publications without their permission.  So it struck
> me as very destructive 
> to see Al quoted in the News Gazette in a way that
> makes aware look 
> clueless and arrogant. not good for aware, because
> it aired a legitimate 
> disagreement in a way that didn't represent the
> disagreement accurately, 
> but also destructive because it was a personal slam.
> (to make matters 
> worse, the legitimate disagreement on tactics never
> got adequately 
> discussed because of shouting in the previous
> meeting.) But even if Al had 
> been saying (or e-mailing) something that made us
> look like geniuses, it's 
> only a courtesy to say "I'm writing an article, may
> I quote you?" again, if 
> people in the group don't understand why this is a
> problem for the group's 
> continuity, then this is not a group I can put my
> energy into
> 
> -- we really do need to be very thoughtful about how
> we present ourselves 
> publicly.  That's not the same as self-censorship,
> but a protective 
> mechanism for the continuity of the group and its
> ability to work 
> locally.  Apparently this has been an impossible
> topic to reach consensus 
> on, but especially if we're trying to make alliances
> locally across 
> communities and across political differences we need
> to be thoughtful about 
> it.  If we're not trying to make any such alliances
> or be a local 
> grassroots group, but rather an agitation group with
> no enduring local 
> ties, that should be decided in a spirit of
> mutuality.  Personally I think 
> being a grassroots group that takes alliances
> seriously while examining 
> them critically is a lot more interesting than being
> an agitation group. I 
> also think it's a lot harder.
> 
> It is striking and a shame that this is happening
> now, of all times.  It 
> seems to me we are in a very dangerous political
> moment when anti-war 
> groups are very necessary and that the same time
> very threatening to the 
> powers that be.  I think our work has been necessary
> in Champaign Urbana 
> and as part of a national movement.
> 
> I'm not sure what conflict resolution would do for
> us.  We have a 
> legitimate conflicts within the group about
> strategy, tactics and 
> politics.  There's no need to resolve those
> conflicts -- as Ricky has 
> written, they're good for us.  It sounds like we
> need to have serious 
> discussions about whether to be an alliance-oriented
> group or an agitation 
> group, but again, I'm not sure we need help with
> that discussion.  the 
> interpersonal problems seem to be foremost --
> they're hanging us up from 
> getting to these other issues.  But it's not fair to
> tell people who've 
> been trashed in public to just get over it.
> 
> Susan Davis
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com