[Peace-discuss] RE: [Wefta] Coercive harmony at WEFT

[Phil Stinard]

Hi Carl,

Welcome to the club!  Criticism of WEFT will be met with hostility and 
attempts to push things under the rug.  I learned that lesson last week :-). 
  If things don't change, WEFT will lose support.  That's not a threat of 
extorsion on my part, it's just an observation.

--Phil


>Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:10:02 -0500
>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: [Wefta] Coercive harmony at WEFT
>To: "Paul M. King" <pmking at uiuc.edu>,	Peace-discuss
>	<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, WEFT <wefta at weftfm.org>
>Message-ID: <3aed6690.3f5dab25.822ab00 at expms1.cites.uiuc.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>I don't accept the description, Paul, but I'm "provoking
>people" because I think that there's a dangerous tendency at
>WEFT right now to freeze its boundaries, both in terms of
>activities and personnel.  That's contrary to its being open
>community radio.  WEFT can hardly "question authority"
>vis-a-vis the national media regime and then condemn the same
>thing internally.  It's of the nature of alternative radio to
>contain some contestation.
>
>And there's a lot of bad politics buried under the invocation
>of "respect" as it's apparently understood in this country
>today. "I respect you as a person (and not as an artichoke?)
>but am eliminating you as an irritant."  That seems to be what
>Nader is talking about as "coercive harmony."  It's how to
>enforce "cooperation" since "everyone thinks they're right."
>
>Madness has been described as the fear of the loss of control
>of one's boundaries, and the notion has been extended to
>groups and organizations.  I think WEFT is showing signs of
>that craziness and has picked a scapegoat in Randall.  That's
>a personal injustice, but even more it's a sign of how WEFT is
>crippling itself.  And that would be a shame.
>
>Regards, CGE
>
>---- Original message ----
> >Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:21:50 -0500
> >From: "Paul M. King" <pmking at uiuc.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [Wefta] Coercive harmony at WEFT
> >To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>, Peace-discuss
><peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, WEFT <wefta at weftfm.org>
> >
> >Carl,
> >
> >Why are you provoking people? This vote was very difficult for
> >me and this morning I question whether I did the right thing
> >last night. The charges, I think, were legitimate: disrespect,
> >dismissive of authority and excessively uncooperative. It is
> >indeed an admirable quality be able to dissent and engage in
> >conflict on behalf of justice, but there's also wisdom in
> >knowing when to concede and when to compromise, particularly
> >when we are all essentially working for the same goals. Being
> >right does not give one justification for pursuing a goal by
> >any means necessary. Everyone thought they were right last
> >night. George Bush thinks he is right too.
> >
> >I fear that the divisiveness and deep-seated hostility that
> >has been generated by this issue will outweigh any good that
> >may come from it.
> >
> >Where do we draw the line, as activists and dissenters? "The
> >Middle Way" has always been a favorite Buddhist mantra of
> >mine. Why eschew the good we can achieve by compromising an
> >absolute goal (achievable without falling victim to coercive
> >harmony) in favor of creating vicious hostility in its
> >achievement?
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >..:: Paul King