[Peace-discuss] AWARE

Wed Sep 2 14:35:46 CDT 2009

Hmm.  Curiouser and curiouser.  These appeals to the "organizers of the group"
and "the leadership" seem to assume a political model foreign to AWARE's rather
anarchist practice.  The call for a firm hand and discipline will not I hope
meet with much success.

On the other matter, the OED provides two interesting examples, the first from a
17th century travelogue--

"Jucundus on the Seyne two bridges laid, For which he well may Pontifex be said.
Pontifex has here a double meaning, as signifying a bridge-maker; whereas the
true acceptation of it is a bishop..."

and the second from "Hinduism Today" Apr. 25, 1999--

"He was a Pontifex ... a man throwing bridges over different rivers. Vedic
heritage and Greek Pagan thought, Hindu worldview and Germanic tradition."

Regards, CGE

jgeo61 at comcast.net wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: jgeo61 at comcast.net To: "C. G. Estabrook" 
> <galliher at illinois.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 1:50:11 PM GMT 
> -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
> 
> Are you saying that AWARE is similar to the Wild West and lawless?.  I 
> strongly suggest asking the organizers of the group to create and to review 
> with you the list of complaints they have received and I also suggest the 
> members of this list serve step forward, if they feel comfortable, to share 
> their experiences with the functionality of this list serve.
> 
> I would like to refer Wayne and yourself to the Websters Dictionary pg. 914 
> for the definition of the word "pontificators".  I stand by my choice and 
> correct use of the word.  Yes, I do believe the time has come to ask the 
> handful of over participants of this list serve to find their own venue. Each
> of you appear to need an audience for your platform and I want my ticket 
> money back.
> 
> I have had enough,
> 
> 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 12:34:00 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: 
> [Peace-discuss] AWARE
> 
> "...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
> 