[Peace-discuss] The last two weeks

[C. G. Estabrook]

Without accepting the characterization, I'd like to discuss
the “question of really hostile and nasty behavior, both in
meetings and in [my] article in the News Gazette” -- which
seems to be meant rather specifically...

[1] “Carl ... was extremely mean and disrespectful to Carol.”
The last time I looked, Carol seemed to me to be a grown-up,
quite able to take care of herself rhetorically.  On the
evening in question she was trying to shape a discussion
(“Let's just have objective accounts...”) to an apparently
predetermined conclusion -- a condemnation of the Obama
demonstration.  But I take the people and the organization
involved in the discussion seriously enough not to be willing
to let that happen unanswered. 

The basis for that condemnation -– never clearly expressed but
apparently drawn from Imani Bazell's screed against the Obama
demonstration the week before -– finally emerged explicitly in
the email exchanges: “we need to treat black politicians
differently than white politicians.” That, I would have been
happy to debate, because (under the general description of
identity politics) it is -- and has been for more that a
generation -- a serious danger to the American left (and,
curiously, only the American left).  That's why I wrote the
article. 

[2] “...it struck me as very destructive to see Al quoted in
the News Gazette in a way that makes aware look clueless and
arrogant.” But of course you didn't see Al quoted in the
News-Gazette: you saw a line attributed to a discussion in an
anti-war group's open forum. In spite of Al's insistence that
the article was about him, it was in fact about a position
apparently held by some in AWARE and by many more outside it.
If the position is clueless and arrogant, that's all the more
reason it should be abandoned.  

I don't see how the article “didn't represent the disagreement
accurately” (and it obviously wasn't “a personal slam”), but I
would be glad to be told, because I think the disagreement is
important.  From the truckling acceptance of Imani's rather
non-specific charges, through the complaints about leafleting
as being rude to the senator, to the assertion that quoting
his words is to demonize him -- that's been the covert point
of the argument, however much people (understandably) want to
avoid it. And I think it's dangerously wrong.  If there is “a
legitimate disagreement on tactics,” it surely could have been
“adequately discussed” in this forum or at subsequent
meetings: that hasn't been stopped by “shouting.” 

But it does seem easier for people to claim that they've been
“trashed in public.”  Maybe I should try it.

Regards, Carl


---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:56:07 -0500
>From: Susan Davis <sgdavis at uiuc.edu>  
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] The last two weeks  
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>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