[Peace-discuss] AWARE - Stuart's excellent comments
Morton K. Brussel
brussel at illinois.edu
Sat Sep 5 12:33:18 CDT 2009
I've no objection to Stuart's proposal, but it seems that the Peace
list could well be used as Stuart proposes for a Peace-Action list.
--mkb
On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Thanks, Stuart.
>
> Well said. I also agree with the suggestion. So many people over
> the years have said they just can't bear peace-discuss that there
> could be a profound effect of essentially re-opening peace-action,
> and using it for all kinds of planning and organizing. It was
> originally proposed as a much more narrow focus, but I like your
> idea a lot.
>
> We could put the 'E' back in AWARE ;-)
>
> Ricky
>
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
> --- On Wed, 9/2/09, Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> From: Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE
> To: jgeo61 at comcast.net, baldwinricky at yahoo.com, galliher at uiuc.edu
> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 4:00 PM
>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090905/ca10d4c2/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list