[Peace-discuss] sorry

[Ricky Baldwin]

Dear Jeff-

I certainly intended no offense, and I'm truly sorry
you took offense.  But I don't see how it maligns
anyone to restate what I was told about the
"perceived" differences.  

If PRC is more slow-and-careful about its decisions,
you may like it that way and think it makes more
sense, etc.  If AWARE is looser and less careful,
that's how we like it and find it useful, etc.  Both
groups have certainly accomplished a lot using
different methods.  The point is AWARE's structure was
intentionally chosen so that we not have to get
approval from any central body or official of the
group for everything we do, and I think we should keep
doing it that way.  As I understand it, PRC has
somewhat stricter requirements for approval,
democratic requirements, also by design, but if that
is incorrect then I apologize.  

I used PRC as a comparison to clarify, not attack, but
I may have failed at both.

Looking back, I realize you may have taken this line -
"We can act without going through painstaking
discussions ad infinitum, with the default always
being that nothing gets done unless folks can agree."
- as a reference to PRC, because of the previous
statement about PRC.  It was not intended as such, but
was supposed to be a more general remark about
experiences that some of us may have had in groups
prior to AWARE -- I know I have.  I realize it wasn't
clear.  Sorry for any confusion on that score.

True, AWARE was started as a coalition, as you say,
but  it never really managed to function as that, for
reasons you point out.  AWARE has, however, worked
with the PRC and other groups for years now, pretty
much always co-sponsoring if asked, joining in
marches, etc.  And PRC has joined our events, too,
notably Prospect for Peace and other protests.  I do
think we have not done nearly enough of working with
other groups.  Even though we try to be looser,
sometimes we can be pretty restrictive about who we
endorse, etc., too.  Too much so, in my opinion.

I also think that part of the loose structure was
probably related to AWARE's original conception as a
coalition, in order to allow member organizations to
do things on their own without having to stop and get
approval from the others.  As AWARE became a coalition
of individuals, as you say, I think that looseness was
preserved - intentionally.  And as I understand it,
the thinking that went into setting this structure up
was informed by experiences that folks had with other
groups in the past - I certainly hope so, and that's
what I was told - and that they wanted to try
something different than the way things were organized
locally during the First Gulf War (as it happens, I
believe, largely by the PRC, or so I'm told).

That is, I think AWARE was set up specifically to try
different things and to try to do them differently
than any other group, not simply as an "alternative"
or getaway for people who might have disagreements
with other groups or hate them or something.

Well, anyway, that's too much from me.  And anybody
who read both these probably deserves two plates of
cookies.

But AWARE is not actually "self-destructing" or
"pledging allegiance to anarchist principles" - though
I can see how it would look that way from the outside
- we are talking about how we do things (which happens
to be based on anarchist principles) and trying our
best to work through our differences in a way that
hopefully will improve our efforts in the future.  We
aren't always doing it in the best way, and we are
making a lot of mistakes - including offending friends
and allies - but in my opinion that's how we learn.

Thanks for letting me explain.
Ricky


--- Jeff Machota <jmachota at shout.net> wrote:

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Last night's meeting
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> To: peace-discuss at chambana.net
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> ==================================================
> 
> Ricky and all AWARE folks,
> 
> The above statement is inaccurate and doesn't
> reflect the history of 
> AWARE as I understand it. When Laura Haber, Peter
> Miller and others 
> first started AWARE soon after 9/11, the PRC was
> invited to be a part of 
> this COALITION effort. It was stressed to us over
> and over again by the 
> initial organizers that AWARE was meant to
> coordinate the activities of 
> other groups and only initiate activities with those
> groups' input.
> 
> PRC members attended those first meetings along with
> representatives 
> from many other groups. It didn't take long for the
> PRC to realize that 
> AWARE at that point was more a coalition of
> individuals than a coaltion 
> of member organizations and we ceased our active
> participation, as did 
> apparently many other groups.
> 
> If AWARE was set up as an anarchist anti-structure
> alternative to PRC, 
> that is news to me. If it was, I'm not sure why we
> were invited to 
> participate.
> 
> PRC is proud that our democratic, structured,
> disciplined approach to 
> organizing and collective action has helped us to
> lead successful 
> actions and campaigns for over 16 years. From street
> marches of over 
> 1200 people from downtown to campus, to rallies in
> the heart of 
> homecoming, to actions at Board of Trustee's
> meetings, our structure has 
> insured that folks can participate without fear of
> reprisal from those 
> ideologically opposed to us and our actions,while
> advancing the struggle 
> for social justice collectively.
> 
> Through the ebbs and flows of the movement and our
> organization, we 
> still persist and continue to be a part of the
> political scene in 
> Champaign-Urbana and beyond.
> 
> While working out your internal issues and while
> pledging your 
> allegiance to anarchist priciples, please keep in
> mind that there is no 
> need to malign other groups in the process. You are
> already doing a good 
> enough job of self-destructing on your own.
> 
> Jeff Machota
> PRC member
> 


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