[Peace-discuss] Re: Obama brochure; AWARE misc and consensus

[C. G. Estabrook]

Come on, Jenifer.  There was nothing inappropriate in the
column (not a letter) that ran in the News-Gazette.  And it
had (in Henry Kissinger's words) the added advantage of being
true. No one has indicated that they find anything false in
that column.  

It's true that some people are quite properly embarrassed
about opinions entertained in AWARE -- viz., that black
politicians should be treated differently from white
politicians -- but that opinion was one of the targets of the
column.  (The other was Obama's politics, particularly on the
war.) 

You seem to be suggesting a version of what Republicans used
to call the 11th commandment -- do not speak ill of your
party.  But if we substitute AWARE for the goals of AWARE,
we've made a big mistake. 

The anti-war movement represents a lot of people moving in the
same direction, often by different routes. Serious discussion
about the route is surely in order, and differences will
remain.  But we shouldn't mistake people going in the opposite
direction (e.g., John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama)
for allies.  Cindy Sheehan has done a lot this summer to make
that clear. 

Regards, Carl

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:38:16 EDT
>From: "jencart" <jencart at mycidco.com>  
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: Obama brochure; AWARE misc and
consensus   
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>Friends,
>
>I see Bob's point about Carl's letter, but I don't think we
can or should have to count on readers to be that perceptive,
logical, and tolerant. This whole thing has put AWARE --
unnecessarily -- in a very bad light.  It should be one of our
goals to leave AWARE-bashing to others, to protect our image,
to avoid looking like the very groups we oppose.  Respectful
and decent behavior towards other members (for starters) must
be seen as included in that.
>
>Our good efforts should take so much time and energy that
there's none left for petty stuff in general, and personal
attacks in particular!  Right now, I'm thinking TPJ and UFPJ
have the right idea.....their names say what they're for, and
I like the positive sound of that.  AWARE is a great thing to
be, but the letters say only what we're against.  I'm hoping
that emphasizing what we're against doesn't come to mean we
don't actually need to be for anything...  
>
>The beliefs of AWARE's members probably go all the way from
"Tear-it-all-down-the-system-is-too-broken-to-be-fixed,"  to
"Work-within-the-system-to-fix-the-system," plus everything in
between.  And for each increment along the continuum, there
are differing views on which issues merit our attention, and
which methods and approaches are appropriate (or not
appropriate)  It's a miracle that AWARE has functioned so well
until recently!
>
>I agree w/ Bob that brochures etc need review and consensus
before AWARE's name is used, just as we get consensus before
AWARE can support a cause, or co- sponsor an event.  And SOME
of us writing letters, guest columns, etc should ask a couple
of AWARE members to approve their drafts before submitting
them for publication!!
>
>Also....I'd like to discuss behavior during AWARE protests.
We had some passive resistence workshops and training, and we
made great strides dealing w/ the pro-war crowd and police on
Prospect a couple of summers ago.  Let's revisit the subject
w/ our goals -- and also our image -- in mind, and set some
guidelines.
>
>Thanks,
>Jenifer C.