[Peace-discuss] AWARE
Jenifer Cartwright
jencart13 at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 3 10:48:46 CDT 2009
Than you for yr posts (below), Stuart, Matt R, Joy, Mort.
Reassuring that so many understand what's happening to AWARE and want to do something to turn things around.
Thanks for the suggestions -- a separate action list, formal mediation...
What's the next step?
--Jenifer
--- On Wed, 9/2/09, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
From: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
To: "C.G.Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>, galliher at uiuc.edu
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 9:52 PM
This from the Peace-Action website: It would appear that their list of tallking points to be made firmly puts them on board for an American military sithdrawal from Afghanistan. This kind of negativism by Carl and Raimondo seems to confirm what Stuart is concerned with, and is destructive in trying to form an anti-war, anti-occupation coalition. --mkb
Take Action In Your Community April 6th - 9th
Sign our Petition
President Obama announced his 10 year plan for Afghanistan. It includes an additional 21,000 U.S. military forces deployed in Iraq and diplomatic engagement of Pakistan. He is still trying to force political and social change through the Pentagon.
We have a better plan: focus on diplomatic cooperation and humanitarian aid, mitigate civilian causalities by scaling back military force. The United Nations, U.S. and British generals, peace groups, and 19 members of Congress agree: the war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily and success is only possible through political means including dialogue between all relevant parties.
Download our paper petition.
Write a Letter to the Editor
Peace Action reaches out to the media to educate the public and change the conversation on critical issues like the troop surge in Afghanistan. You can help. We need to build public support for diplomatic solutions in Afghanistan. Join our media campaign by writing a letter to the editor. You can use any of our pre written letters by clicking here.
In-District Visits
Congress is at home the weekend of April 4th through the 6th. Welcome them back with an in-district lobby visit. Peace Action has a better plan for Afghanistan (read below). You can use our fact sheets to help drive your point home. To make an appointment look up your Congressperson online here.
Here are your Talking Points:
1. De-escalate troop levels in Afghanistan and to reject the idea that there is a military solution to the region's problems;
2. Immediately stop military activities that indiscriminately impact civilians such as air and drone strikes;
3. Rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan;
4. Commit to negotiated diplomatic talks involving all major regional players, including major international peace-keeping bodies; and,
5. Address the real needs of Afghans, which include health-care, clean water, education, and security.
On Sep 2, 2009, at 9:32 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
Stuart--
I'll try to say some more about this, but one quick point:
As I argued at the time, I think Raimundo's reference to Peace Action was correct, and I think their position is a sign of the continuing disarray of liberal opposition to the war. Such opposition now comes primarily not from liberals but from the Left and the old Right.
Go look at their website now. Their opposition to the war in AfPak is certainly restrained. There's no call for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Only within their list of talking points can one find anything that suggests that.
Their position is in short somewhat to the right of George Will's. That's a bad sign. --CGE
Stuart Levy wrote:
Joy, Ricky, Carl,
Thanks for pushing the question of how & what AWARE discusses and what we do.
I'd like to respond more when I get a little more time.
But some comments, for now:
Any anarchical organization, such as AWARE intends to be,
relies on freedom balanced primarily by self-restraint,
since formal organizational restraints are generally not there.
Within a group like this one, it's especially worth raising
the question of just what on earth we're trying to do,
and how to structure ourselves to go there.
So I'm glad we're talking about this now.
I too have been frustrated at the distribution of types of
peace-discuss messages. Pragmatically, when I feel involved with AWARE
but find that I can only afford to read a small fraction of what
crosses its main mailing list, that's a bad sign.
I've been disappointed too at what a small fraction of our discussion
messages are devoted to, or even oriented so as to lead toward,
possible actions, alliances, etc.
As a matter of rhetoric, I also find it frustrating to see
so much of our communication taken up with identifying enemies.
A common pattern in public speech, especially during the
Bush Administration, was to *identify the enemy* (Yassir Arafat,
Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, islamofascism, "illegal immigrants"...),
followed perhaps by an expression of relentless opposition to
that enemy. Problem addressed. Trust us.
A few months ago on this list, we argued over an article from
Justin Raimondo which excoriated the ineffective Left for not
pursuing the Afghanistan war as a serious issue. I'm *not* suggesting
that no such criticism is warranted. But in making this type of
enemy-pointing argument, Raimundo carelessly and specifically
included groups like Peace Action, who have long made
Afghanistan an active focus of their work.
What's the effect? If we were action-oriented, this could mean that
making parallel efforts with a group like Peace Action would be
a good thing for us to pursue. But swallowing them up in a the-Left-are-no-damn-good sweep just seems aimed at making
rhetorical points. It's no help in guiding us to do or be anything
except helpless.
While we argued over abstractions, SJP brought
Norman Finkelstein and Ali Abunimah to UIUC!
Likewise if we complain that the Democrats are not supporting
an effective US government role in health care, and are caving
in to the insurance, pharma, etc. interests. The Dem. leadership,
including the Obama adminstration, seems to be doing just that.
But *sixty* House Democrats (including Keith Ellison, who'd have been
my Rep. if I still lived in Minneapolis) are refusing to follow the party line,
and standing ready to force the Administration to finally compromise
to the Left, instead of (as Cornell West said recently) having
its ears open only to the Right. They represent a piece of the
kind of protest movement that Obama needs to be getting pressure from.
As Glenn Greenwald points out,
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/19/obama/index.html
their kind of wedge is really important -- and not only for the health care
issue, but as a way of changing the whole political game.
If we as relatively powerless agents (whether AWARE or the
peace movement in general) are going to take political action,
we need to be political opportunists, ready to spot cracks and
prepared to widen them. If we focus on generalities,
even well-founded ones, we'll lose sight of those very cracks.
One practical suggestion: We could let the discussion stream fission. There is even a currently-unused
mailing list, "peace-action at lists.chambana.net" (and maybe @anti-war.net too).
We could leave peace-discuss for free-wheeling discussions, some of which
would prove fruitful and some just fruity, and encourage sifting
AWARE-related action-oriented discussions and articles and what not
to this new old peace-action forum -- presumably busier and less cut-and-dried
than "peace", but more focused than "peace-discuss".
Now I have to get back to work...
Stuart
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 03:13:13PM +0000, jgeo61 at comcast.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: jgeo61 at comcast.net To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:56:36 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
I would like to open today's conversation with the following questions:
What would it take for you to become an active AWARE member?
What specific issues, in your opinion, would need to be adopted by the group to ensure your participation?
Let the discussion begin,
Joy George
----- Original Message ----- From: jgeo61 at comcast.net To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:10:40 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------ With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. Click here. <http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list