[Peace-discuss] AWARE

Wed Sep 2 12:34:00 CDT 2009

"...intervention by leadership"?  AWARE has leadership?  When & where has it
"intervened"?

Do I understand correctly that you're objecting to debate on a discussion
list...?  Or saying just that "pontificators" have to shut up?

(A pontificator -- I have to hurry to point it out before Wayne does -- is
literally a bridge-builder, and that surely is something we need to do.)

Yet you conclude, "May the conversation continue..."  OK.  --CGE

jgeo61 at comcast.net wrote:
> I would be happy to.  As I understand, the AWARE group was created to tackle 
> the issues of Peace and Justice and be an outlet for folks living in the area
> to feel they had a voice and to take action.  The goals of the AWARE group
> are in theory decided upon by the membership via, ie: surveys, board 
> recommendations etc.  When I see only 3 - 4 people on the peace-discuss list 
> serve pontificating for weeks and months at a time and when the conversations
> become so heated that there needs to be an intervention by leadership, I
> understand clearly that the "discussion" has ceased to exist and in fact has
> slipped to a typical "I'm right, your dead wrong" situation. We as longtime
> peace activists, know first hand how distructive this is to the work that
> needs to be done.  It is an unecessary distraction.
> 
> I am tired of the situation where we are contuously losing members due to 
> their frustration and unmet needs.
> 
> In my mind, to have a meaningful discussion, not a debate, to explore the 
> "root causes" of war requires intensive listening on both sides. Which is 
> clearly, quite clearly, not in practice here.
> 
> May the conversation continue.
> 
> Joy George
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>  To: jgeo61 at comcast.net Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Sent: Wednesday,
>  September 2, 2009 9:23:29 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: 
> [Peace-discuss] AWARE
> 
> Would you be willing to be a bit more specific?
> 
> What are "the goals and needs of the entire group" that are not reflected on
>  peace-discuss?  And what is "the entire group"? AWARE members?  All those in
>  favor of peace?
> 
> If the list doesn't reflect such views, the solution would seem to be 
> inclusion, not exclusion, viz. "those who want to have the ongoing debate 
> discussions find their own regular venue..."
> 
> The "work to be done" seems to me importantly to include understanding what 
> we're doing and why.  --CGE
> 
> 
> jgeo61 at comcast.net wrote:
>> This is quite an accusation.  You make it sound as if we are pouting, 
>> taking our toys home, since we didn't get our way on the playground.  My 
>> concern is that this discussion group does not reflect the goals or needs 
>> of the entire group and in fact the current behavior has driven away 
>> existing/potential members.
>> 
>> If we want to "make a difference" in the peace effort, we must stick 
>> together to be a unified force, otherwise we appear only to be squabbling 
>> chickens.  I strongly believe that if those who want to have the ongoing 
>> debate discussions find their own regular venue and talk until the cows 
>> come home. There is work to be done and there is no time like the present 
>> to get back to it.
>> 
>> Joy
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook"
> <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> To: "Matt Reichel" <mattreichel at hotmail.com> Cc: 
>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2009
> 9:50:28 PM
>> GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
>> 
>> As I suggested, the functional definition of "unpleasantness" here seems to
>>  be "the expression of an opinion that departs from the liberal consensus"
>>  (e.g., "Obama is not anti-war").
>> 
>> It would seem that the purpose of the peace-discuss list would be by 
>> discussion to discover (a) the source and nature of America's war and (b) 
>> effective strategies to work against it.  And I think (b) depends upon (a).
>>  In the absence of an accurate analysis, the best will in the world can do 
>> the right thing only by accident.
>> 
>> The largest anti-war demonstrations in human history occurred just before 
>> the US invasion of Iraq, in the US and around the world, but the American 
>> antiwar movement in the intervening years largely ceased to exist.  (It 
>> obviously still exists from Palestine to Pakistan as resistance to US 
>> invasion and occupation.)
>> 
>> John Walsh wrote last week
>> <http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh08262009.html>,
>> 
>> "A funny thing has happened on Cindy Sheehan’s long road from Crawford, 
>> Texas, to Martha’s Vineyard.   Many of those who claim to lead the peace 
>> movement and who so volubly praised her actions in Crawford, TX, are not to
>> be seen. Nor heard ... Where are the email appeals to join Cindy from The
>> Nation or from AFSC or Peace Action or 'Progressive' Democrats of America
>> (PDA) or even Code Pink? Or United for Peace and Justice. (No wonder UFPJ 
>> is essentially closing shop, bereft of most of their contributions and 
>> shriveling up following the thinly veiled protest behind the 'retirement of
>> Leslie Cagan.)   And what about MoveOn although it was long ago thoroughly
>> discredited as principled opponents of war or principled in any way shape 
>> or form except slavish loyalty to the 'other' War Party.  And of course 
>> sundry 'socialist' organizations are also missing in action since their 
>> particular dogma will not be front and center.  These worthies and many 
>> others have vanished into the fog of Obama’s wars."
>> 
>> It seems to me that there will be more unpleasantness before an effective 
>> anti-war movement is reconstituted in the country.  --CGE
>> 
>> 
>> Matt Reichel wrote:
>>> Jenifer -
>>> 
>>> It appears that this list has descended into absolute silliness ie 
>>> juvenile intellectual masturbation from the 3-4 primary posters.
>>> 
>>> AWARE was initially founded as an answer to the PRC, which used to 
>>> dominate progressive politics in Champaign-Urbana with its authoritarian,
>>> overly-bureaucratic organizing style. On the student end of things, I 
>>> founded Student Peace Action for those students who had too much 
>>> self-respect to sit through a PRC meeting. For a few years there, this 
>>> model of having three organizations, one for students, one for community
>>> members and one for people who were able to withstand PRC's inane 
>>> bureaucracy, was incredibly effective: on the day the war in Iraq began, 
>>> we had over 1,000 people marching through the streets of Chambana.
>>> 
>>> It looks as if most of the original organizers of AWARE are long gone, 
>>> and the group has become the wrong it originally sought to correct, i.e. 
>>> a top-down group dominated by a few unpleasant personalities.
>>> 
>>> Best, Matt
>>> 
>>> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:29:50 -0700 From: jencart13 at yahoo.com To: 
>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
>>> 
>>> Yet more issues today that take time and energy away from peace and 
>>> justice work...
>>> 
>>> I think about all the good people who have left AWARE because of the 
>>> unpleasantness, and so I'm hanging on and trying not to become another 
>>> casualty. But right now I feel so downhearted about all the ugliness that
>>> I really don't want to be part of this anymore.
>>> 
>>> I will say that it is the good people remaining who give me hope that 
>>> there are better days ahead for AWARE, as well as for our nation and the 
>>> world. --Jenifer