community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
TMC breaks solidarity-
by John
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 4:30 PM
Latest statement from TMC board presidents. Very disturbing comments indicate they are trying to bring pog and it's events under their control.
the relevant parts of the statement.
"A message from Bette and Saleh, TMC Co-Presidents
We as co-presidents, Thomas Merton Center board members, and most importantly as activists in the peace movements, want to take concrete steps to raise these discussions and to see that we organize ourselves along lines that are inclusive of everyone's perspectives. We are suggesting three specific things we would like people to do:
1) please attend the weekly vigil closest to you this Saturday at noon (for this week these are the North Side, Oakland, East Liberty, Squirrel Hill, and Regent Square vigils), and after the silent vigil please speak with others about what non-violence means to you and what are some steps we can take to address various forms of violence that we may encounter at future peace events
2) the Thomas Merton Center Anti-War Committee has graciously provided time on the agenda for the meeting this Sunday at 11 (at the Thomas Merton Center) for us, as co-Presidents of the Board, to present our concerns and hear from members on how we will continue organizing ourselves to be non-violent
3) after the Anti-War Committee meeting please join us for an open-air session at Frick Park at 1 pm, concurrent with the picnic, for a larger group discussion (people from the vigils, from the Anti-War Committee, and others) for a "Pacifism Parley". We will pick a spot in the park close to the intersection of Forbes and South Braddock. We would like to see the on-going discussions about non-violence and dealing with violence at future peace events develop concretely into at least self-enforced guidelines, and perhaps longer-range organizing of non-violence workshops so that everyone can sustain their beliefs within the peace movement.
In addition, both of us want to make sure that we are directly available to you to hear your concerns and to work together through these important issues in these difficult times. Both of us can be e-mailed, Bette at
bettemcd@telerama.com and Saleh at info@zi-activism.net, and if you wish to speak on the phone, Saleh can be reached at 412 654-6047. Please feel free to contact us at any time because we always look forward to hearing from you.
Bette and Saleh
ha!
by ....
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 4:36 PM
"We would like to see the on-going discussions about non-violence and dealing with violence at future peace events develop concretely into at least self-enforced guidelines"
That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. The only events these would apply to is pog's un-permitted marches which already have guidlines of non-violence. All TMC Anti-war committee events have had strict guidlines and peacekeepers. What right do they have to decide what non-violent actions are taken at events they don't organize? What has the anti-war committee done in the last 3 months?
why conflict
by rosie red
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 5:18 PM
why of earth do they
have to schedule the
stupid meeting to
conflict with the
picnic? it's the one
event going on that
everyone can be a part
of without politics.
This is ridiculous
by --
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 5:58 PM
Wow. All this stuff is just about synonymous to a bunch of anarchists or otherwise more militant people going to a candlelit vigil and blocading streets, breaking windows, and generally disrespecting the space of the event. Why do these people feel like they have a right to go to a march that respects Diversity of Tactics, do everything they can to make sure a diversity isn't represented, and then complain about it later and cut themselves off from that segment of "their movement." And then they come out publicly on IMC and call <i>us</i> brats!?!
--
by --
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 6:19 PM
well a person at the AWC meeting did refer to pog and it's allies in a derisive way as "children" while saying that the adults needed to take over. if only they knew the age of some people in pog.
not all of TMC
by Alex from POG
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 6:22 PM
I would like to make clear that the original statement that someone posted is only from the co-presidents of the board. I do not believe the agenda they have reflects the sentiments of the staff or members of the Merton Center.
Alex from POG
it's calling for discussion
by Saleh
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 6:25 PM
info@zi-activism.net
Hi,
I'm sorry to see that our message has been misinterpreted. This is a call for discussion, not a break with solidarity or an attempt to impose anything on anyone.
there is no attempt to impose guidelines on a group or event, but rather an attempt to encourage discussion on the question of guidelines if even at an individual level. self-enforced means just that - not one person or group enforcing on another person or group, but only on a consensual basis.
we're not trying to end diversity of tactics, but we are trying to encourage discussion about it, with whoever wants to talk about it. I do think that at least some people are interested in discussing this, and I'm concerned that they haven't been encouraged to.
It's not scheduled at the same time of the picnic, it's at the picnic. People can go to the picnic as always, and if they want they can take part in the discussion, if they don't want to they don't have to. I hope no one sees a problem with having a discussion at a picnic. A discussion is not the same thing as imposing views or rules on anyone.
Let me know if this makes sense to you, or if it still seems like it either breaks solidarity, takes away from the event on the 30th, is divisive, or is taking away anyone's freedom (pulling these out of the comments above). Specifically let me know how we can make it clear that it's about discussion by and for those who want to discuss it, not about imposing things on others or not respecting their views.
Saleh
not true
by non pog member on the pog listserver
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 6:38 PM
If this discussion about "self enforced" guidlines is just going to be a part of the picnic then why was it originally scheduled to take place DURING the rally at 2:00pm? and why the heck do these "peaceburgh'er" poster people have a event scheduled that directly conflicts with the march. Oh, and not to keep going but why do the advert's for the "peaceburgh'er" thing mention what it is, the fact it's only 2 blocks from frick park, but they don't bother to mention the 3 other events bringing people to frick park in the first place. What the fuck is happening to the solidarity in our city?
very upsetting
by concerned
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 6:45 PM
Pittsburgh had a rep for being a small city doing it right -- liberals and radicals marching together and being effective at all sorts of different types of events (massive cd in unpermitted marches, vigils, picnics, rallies, concerts, etc) This is going to do nothing but encourage the police to beat in the heads of unpermitted marches and will definitely do nothing to keep opposition to this war strong.
re: not true
by Saleh
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 6:52 PM
info@zi-activism.net
the discussion about non-violence was originally meant to be during the picnic, never the rally. A first draft had the wrong time - 2 pm, which was corrected. I am not sure why that draft was distributed, if it was, but it was always meant to be at the picnic and not the rally.
I still don't see how discussing non-violence can be breaking solidarity - some people are very clear on where they are at with this, others are not. Those who aren't need to sort things out for themselves, hopefully in discussion with everyone else, and this will make everyone in an even better position to be in solidarity with each other.
No one's attacking anyone, no one is imposing guidelines on anyone, so let whoever wants to discuss non-violence discuss it and let's get on with it.
Saleh
would like to say there is more
by 9T0Tjsgio
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 6:53 PM
I think it is important for everyone to realize that there is a lot more going on then what is in that statement from the co-presidents of the board. I know a lot of people are aware of some of these things so please keep that in mind when judging how justified various statements are.
POG is being attacked very hard by people who want to see there be one steering committee for the entire anti-war movement in Pittsburgh. I don't know if they see POG as a threat or what, but there are a lot of people itching to seperate the "bad" protesters from the "good".
not true again!!!
by non pog member on the pog listserver
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 7:01 PM
"No one's attacking anyone, no one is imposing guidelines on anyone, so let whoever wants to discuss non-violence discuss it and let's get on with it."
If this is true then why has there been suggestions from the vice president of the TMC board to not support events that don't have peace marshalls?
correction
by ...
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 7:10 PM
to correct the comment posted below. The person in question refered to POG as babies and said it was time for the adults to lead the way. Just to clarify.
by -- � Friday March 28, 2003 at 06:19 PM
well a person at the AWC meeting did refer to pog and it's allies in a derisive way as "children" while saying that the adults needed to take over. if only they knew the age of some people in pog.
People Attacking POG
by Alex from POG
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 7:13 PM
pog@mutualaid.org
I would disagree with the assertion that people are not attacking pog. I believe people attacked us at the AWC meeting and I believe those same people have continued to do so. If people do feel the need to attack us then please do so openly. I'm getting tired of people spreading rumors and making slanderous statements in situations where they think no one we know is around. It's in bad form.
one of the babies...
Alex from POG
re:
by Saleh
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 7:58 PM
info@zi-activism.net
compiled replies:
- the message is just calling for a discussion, not asking "adults" to take over for "children" but for everyone to respect each other enough to realize that there are many views on non-violence and diversity of tactics, so we don't want any one side to impose on another one or to belittle anyone. If there are people who want to do that, it doesn't have to do with the message Bette and I sent.
- Alex is correct in pointing out that it just came from the Co-Presidents, as opposed to the board or the staff.
- I don't see how discussion about non-violence is going to encourage the police, I don't think people are taking the side of the police over our own side: the peace movement (which includes all of us)
- the statement is just that, a statement: a call for discussion. There is of course a lot more going on in the peace movement, but the statement isn't a partisan one. To be explicit:
* the statement does not call for one steering committee for the whole anti-war movement, and neither do I. In fact at board meetings I've spoken against creating one steering committee (or 'politburo'), saying that these issues should be decided within the movement itself and that unity only comes through working together, not through declaring a central body.
* the statement is not about calling some protestors "bad" and others "good" but about reminding people that there is diversity in views of non-violence and that we should all accept each other (*all* views). The discussion is not about blaming or separating, but about people talking about how they feel, whether it covers differences or not, but in a way that respects and honors diversity.
* the vice-president of the board I believe made the peace-marshall statement as a member/convenor of the anti-war committee. That doesn't have anything to do with the co-presidents' call for discussion. Let's please keep comments to specific statements/actions and not mix things.
* I am not saying people are not attacking POG, I am saying we (Bette and I) are not attacking POG. The character of the message is a call for discussion, not part of a partisan attack, whether there is one or not.
Please keep letting me know how I can make this clearer. I do want to thank everyone for their comments as this is the first time I'm seeing what's behind some of the defensiveness I've encountered, and I hope everything can be cleared up so that everyone feels like they're being understood. Thanks for being frank.
Thanks - Saleh
p
by p
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 8:27 PM
* Let's please keep comments to specific statements/actions and not mix things.
It doesn't make sense to keep everything separate because it all ties together. This group of people have a specific agenda they are attempting to advance and it is important to look at it as a complete picture.
This whole episode is similar to the simple "calls" for meetings by some people in the AWC of all the groups working against the war. They're attempting to create a steering committee for the whole movement. It's true it would be possible to have just a meeting, but the intention is for the meetings to develop into a lot more. The resistance of a number of people is the only reason that hasn't yet occurred. It's not the action itself, but the intention of the people putting it together that is important. From everything I've heard I'm doubtful that this same group isn't trying to get a set of guidelines for participants in anti-war events that would end up being coercively enforced on others. A lot of people in these groups have made a lot of statements in AWC meetings and other places so if people want to argue this point it isn't hard to pull them out.
re: P
by Saleh
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 9:03 PM
info@zi-activism.net
Neither Bette nor I are part of a group with a specific agenda - please let me know why you think we are.
We are not trying to call all groups together to try to form coordinating body, if you're referring to the strategy meeting. For the record I was against the strategy meeting, and spoke at the board against it saying that we can't just call for unity and expect it to happen, that it has to come from the broader movement and through working together first.
Please do not mix Bette's or my intentions up with anyone else's, please talk to people who know us to judge our character on this.
Bette and I have not made such statements at AWC meetings - and to my regret I haven't even been to AWC meetings but will start this Sunday.
There may be people doing bad things, but we're not a part of that, and I don't think this is about that. This is about discussion on non-violence - I don't see how that itself can be bad. If it turns into something about stifling other people or imposing rules on them, then that's bad and I'll be against it. But that's not what this is about. If you can materially connect the message or Bette and myself to anything that you're concerned about, please let me know what the connection is.
I think a diversity of opinions about non-violence can co-exist. e.g. If one person thinks another person's non-violence is violence, then they should use non-violence in acting on it, not stifling others or setting rules for them, or yelling at someone about moving newspaper boxes as was described in another post.
Thanks - Saleh
re: POG events
by Saleh
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 9:11 PM
info@zi-activism.net
something I missed in earlier posts:
I fully understand that POG does not consider diversity of tactics up for discussion, and I fully respect that as I am not trying to force them to have it. I have no intention of taking over POG events or telling them how to do things. I have suggested to a POG person, privately, that they bring diversity of tactics up for discussion, but that's their right and their business. I also have no intention of imposing rules on POG events or any events that don't want them or any individual that doesn't want them if they're at an event with diversity of tactics.
Like I said, I think diverse views of non-violence *can* co-exist even if they contradict each other. I don't think diversity of views on non-violence or diversity of tactics is a threat to anyone.
This is not impossible people - we *can* all get along even if we don't agree on what non-violence is or what tactics we're comfortable with.
Saleh
missed one more thing
by Saleh
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 9:18 PM
info@zi-activism.net
pps: I do think you can be very militant and also non-violent in the most extreme definition. I don't think militancy is the issue with diversity of opinions on non-violence.
Sorry for not putting this all in one post, it's an older issue but one I should point out here (that different kinds of non-violence can be equally militant)
hey
by concerned2
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 10:37 PM
i think that the important thing here is that the TMC and other groups such as POG are all committed to the anti-war effort and that is the important thing to remember. this time, of all times, is when differences of opinion, tactics, etc need to be put aside in favor of the movement as a whole.
a house divided against itself can not stand...
Keep in mind...
by teamsterturtle
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 10:37 PM
I would not be surprised to see the government step-in and attempt to exacerbate these tensions, a la COINTELPRO. Just keep that in mind when the rumor mill starts running faster.
I hope we can work this out together. One idea that I am not opposed to is having additional permitted marches/activities with well-defined routes, and no civil disobedience (or planned at the end). As someone involved with POG and a member of the Merton Center, I would participate in this kind of event as well as ones supporting a "diversity of tactics." I just wouldn't the permitted/non-cd type of event to be the "be all and end all" of our war resistance in Pittsburgh.
No Vanguardism!
re: very upsetting
by Sam
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 11:40 PM
<<Pittsburgh had a rep for being a small city doing it right -- liberals and radicals marching together and being effective at all sorts of different types of events (massive cd in unpermitted marches, vigils, picnics, rallies, concerts, etc) This is going to do nothing but encourage the police to beat in the heads of unpermitted marches and will definitely do nothing to keep opposition to this war strong.>>
Exactly. They're going to be watching us even more closely in the future. We need unity now more than ever.
Children?
by Sam
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 11:45 PM
"well a person at the AWC meeting did refer to pog and it's allies in a derisive way as 'children' while saying that the adults needed to take over."
Arrrgh, that makes my blood boil...
things in me head
by ettar
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 11:52 PM
it's kinda late and im real tired but all this talk
is real depressing. im not involved in any of the
committees being talked about. i'd like to
give a "raise the roof" to those who previously
said a divided house can't stand or something.
the tmc has been totally supportive..
it seems to me that the groups have been
able to do what they want to do and support each other
to boot...i guess im totally down for an all out pittsburgh get together and talk shit out but
on the premise of "i love you, but" i.e. leave
your personal shit behind and unconditional love
in the begining and the end. (this discussion needs
to happen but with no animosity and in person)
to be quite honest the "rally" with too many speakers
and the "unpermitted" march (except thursday)
are all too uncreative and no offensive sooper
boring. im dying to be festive and "demonstrate"
what we are for at the same time articulating what we are are against.
and this happens on a very small level with our smiles
and our songs..but..
shit yinz it could be so much bigger..
i almost wasnt gonna attend the sunday thing
cuz i thought it would be boring and ineffective.
(please someone give me a pep talk)
if anyone wants to brainstorm ill be at the picnic
dressed like a yuppie, a smurf, a yetti or a
70's roller skater....depending on the weather..
organize
by ..
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 12:12 AM
This shit is stupid. Yes, it would be awesome to have more permitted rallies, more creative events, more festive things, but SOMEONE HAS TO ORGANIZE THEM!!! This is the same problem that always arises. How many events can pog realistically be expected to put together? Especially now that a lot of people are pressuring groups to distance themselves from them.
There are a lot of creative, more festive things coming up. The convergence at the end of April is a number of permitted marches, pog has a carnival themed unpermitted feeder march to the rally, pog is doing a art action with bloodied bady dolls, and more. There is lots of stuff going on, but everything requires people who want to help.
Etta, I totally agree with you. The rallies and marches aren't for everyone, but they bring new people to the movement. Pittsburgh obviously needs to kick things up a notch or two. One thing that has worked in the past is calls to action. Get some people together, call for a bloc of some sorts, have a cool event the hour before the picnic or schedule something for after the march ends. All pog has done is make a framework that makes it easier to get other shit going IF people utilize it.
Pog involvement
by teamsterturtle
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 12:33 AM
I wasn't suggesting POG organize the permitted marches. Let the AWC do it!
that is happening
by Neal
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 12:45 AM
the awc is organizing the
marches on april 26th
other then that I don't
think you will get them to
do much. the pace of
awc organizing can only
be described as excrutiatingly
slooooowwwww.
interesting article
by Catherine
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 12:57 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/13/we_341_01.html
horrible article.
by christ
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 1:05 AM
there are so many errors and illogical statements in that article. for something a little better try King's Letters From Birmingham Jail.
People are dying!
by Mark
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 1:33 AM
mbyokim@care2.com
I mean seriously. Are we afraid that we are not being effective together. Are we afraid that we are not reaching out and attracting those who want peace, to work for peace in the ways that they feel most comfortable. Now is a time when generations must come together to discuss our lives and how we can work together for peace.
WE need to be more honest to ourselves and to others. WE are the ones working for peace. If we go in seperate directions against war, it seems less likely that we will find how to make peace just be, together. We live in a very comfortable and secure society, are we afraid of how we will be percieved for all our differences? Most importantly we need to work together to strengthen the simliarities and grow in further understanding of our differences.
What about those who have to live in the fear of death? Aren't we trying to support them and free them from aggression? How can we humble ourselves to forget our differences and work for peace for them? It is long road and we are all fighting many battles in our collective hearts besides the large war in front of us. May we remember the needs of those who are facing the destruction of their livelihood and the fear of death. WE CAN BRING PEACE TO THIS WORLD! There has got to be a majority of people among Six Billion who are willing to work together for peace. Are we a part of them?
contact tmc
by justice
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 1:36 AM
Anyone who can should contact the tmc and encourage them to stay in solidarity with those using direct action. Tell them to reject the calls of those who want to turn the movement into one steering committee. Tell them to not abandon the more radical elements of the movement. The radicals have supported us through all of this without any violence or breaking of things. You can contact the director at tmc.director@verizon.net
Don't let the progress that's been made be undone. We have come so far in the last 6 months we can't stop now. A return to the old ways will be the death of this movement. Look at the numbers we've been getting at things recently, the energy, the diversity, and the number of new people getting involved every day. Who wants to return to only permitted rallies of the same types of speakers? Who wants to have a citywide anti-war coalition like we had after 9-11? That is what the effect of all this is going to be if we don't speak out.
solidarity,
David
non-violence, diversity and unity
by -
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 9:08 AM
I spoke to Dennis Brutus yesterday about non-violence, a diversity of tactics and even property destruction. What he said to me was probably what I consider to be the most effective and non-divisive statement I've heard.
While he doesn't support things like property destruction himself, he does recognize the different definitions of what is violent (and realizes a lot of folks don't see property destruction as violent, that violence only applies to people). He supported the different zones at Quebec City during the FTAA summit that allowed radicals to smash up corporate businesses and others to march without being associated with their actions. He said that while he might not support PD or some tactics, he has never been convinced that he has the right to say what someone else's tactics should be. The key is to ensure that one's tactics aren't attributed or associated with another.
This can be very easily applied to Pittsburgh -- it's easy because no one is destroying property right now, so the moral implications are somewhat less intense. If you don't want to be part of a disruptive event, then you should avoid things like unpermitted marches. If you only want to be disruptive, then you should only go to unpermitted marches and escalate your tactics otherwise. If you think both are effective (which I think is where most of us lie, then go to everything and respect the goals of the organizers or the majority of people participating) There is no reason why folks have to distance themselves from one another in this movement. The media knows which groups organize what (and when they attributed M20 to the TMC, that was accurate, it was a TMC event!)
You dont have to like it.
by ian
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 10:30 AM
The whole point of diversity of tactics is that while you may not like something that another actavist is doing, you understand why, and you understand the issue that they are taking action around. So while you dont have to like some actions that people take, you can still support the goals that they want to achieve and not interfere with what they are doing.
proper place?
by kenny unice
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 10:57 AM
is indypgh really the right place for this debate? first, it seems ashame for the general peace movement to air its dirty laundry on a media site. but second, it is clear that corp media and probably the police monitor this site. what used to be unique about pgh was that any disagreement among groups wasn't debated in public. indypgh is well indexed by google so what we write here can and will be read worldwide. we don't all have to agree in private... perhaps this could be resolved through an email discussion list.
Peaceful or nonviolent?
by Stephen Donahue
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 11:57 AM
sdonahue412@hotmail.com
I have been told that the CD march on 3/20 was not peaceful. Good! Disrupting "business as usual" and this was our clearly stated intention, is not a peaceful enterprise. Those who came to this march so they could feel warm fuzzies were out of luck. Too bad. Too bad that everybody was not smiling. Too bad that we all said, "fuck." Too bad a newspaper box was placed into the street. Too bad the liberals think that we are building walls instead of bridges. Too bad we made people feel uncomfortable. Too bad the war mongers don't like us. I am for disturbing the peace. Nobody should feel comfortable in these days. Non-violence is a must but forget peace. Outside of a context of justice there can be no peace.
I am a TMC member. Hope that this present rift can be mended but maybe it can't. What evaporated this week was trust. Some TMC officers want unity but without trust. Talking about "babies" or "the kids" taking over this movement is a clear example of this lack of trust. Forget "policing each other!" Trust is needed. I am against coming up with policies of self censorship, policing, etc. I am strongly against any and all efforts to steer this movement.
on resolution
by ..
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 12:13 PM
I agree that this stuff should get resolved in private, but that is unlikley. In order for there to be a resolution people would need to be honest about what complaints they have. That's the problem with rumors and shit talking. People never come forward to say what they really think, but instead make divisive comments to others.
etta is right
by Sam
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 12:28 PM
Unpermitted marches are fine, but we need to start varying these things a bit.
I agree with Dennis on this one
by Saleh
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 2:53 PM
info@zi-activism.net
I agree with that post by the person who talked to Dennis Brutus - to me there is a range of opinions on what tactics people are comfortable with, we need to make room for them all. Some people are OK with diversity of tactics at an event they're at, some people would probably prefer more of a Quebec model, or at least some events with guidelines even if others don't. Diversity of tactics for the whole movement, not necessarily for every event, and those who're organizing should get to decide while trying to make room for as many as possible.
I am not sure what Steve means by unity without trust - I don't think you can get trust when people feel stifled within the anti-war movement, which is what's happening to those who aren't comfortable with diversity of tactics. This doesn't mean anyone should go against diversity of tactics - they need to at least figure out how they feel about things and start organizing things for themselves as well (constructive discussion), so that they can get unity through being equals. Trust comes from working together, not stifling discussion because we think it could be divisive. Discussion does not mean steering committees.
I agree that this shouldn't have been done on a public site, but on the other hand this is the first time I'm coming across honest concerns about the statement Bette and I released, and am glad to read these. I would rather people have been frank with Bette and I in person or directly about the statement, but I'm really greatful that people have been frank on IMC.
yes stifling bad, but organizing fragmentation good?
by pizzaman
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 4:10 PM
I agree stifling this discussion is not a good idea. If people want to talk about what is "violence" and "how should we organize ourselves" then do it, and then organize something that follows the rules you set for yourself. BUT I also agree with the people who posted concerns about where this discussion goes from there. I think anti-war movements should use "I don't like war" as the motivation, not "I don't like how other organizers are doing things" as motivation. This seems to lead to fragmentation in the movement as a whole, causing each group to not show up at each others events. (see peaceburgh moving an event to the exact same time as the rally tomorrow). That IS "bad form". I anyone planning some sort of teach-in on agism in the movement? That sounds really needed. Am I the only one who thinks March 20th was kinda successful? Almost everyone arrested who I talked with were really mad at police, not POG.
One more thing
by pizzaman
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 4:20 PM
I didn't know anyone was stifling people! Who were they? How did they do it? I don't want to accidentally stifle anyone, could you please explain this?
what the heck
by Evan N
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 4:43 PM
You guys are meaking a big deal out of nothing. The statement said nothign about trying to bring pog under control of the AWC, and the comments at the AWC that were anti-pog were quickly argued against by mystelf and some pog members that were there. You who seek to convey this message in a anti-solidarity way aare braking the solidarity. all they are trying to do is remind people about non violence thats all. if you support a diversity of tactics then you should be okay with that
another thing
by Evan N
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 5:01 PM
Another thing: check this post that tim made in another thread:
I will be there!
by Tim Vining • Thursday March 27, 2003 at 07:12 PM
tmc.director@verizon.net
I will be there and I plan on marching. Perhaps I will wear a bandana!
-----
To me that shows extreme solidarity between the TMC and POG, If you are the kind of person who views the AWC as old people and POG as young people, in that post right there tim form the TMC is breaking the barrier down. I'm not blind: i do see that the average age at AWC and POG meetings differ, but that only tells us to mix and match. I'm 15 and i go to AWC meetings, i'm the youngest kid there. POG people come to AWC meetings, thats great too. While POG and the AWC have separate means, they both have the same ends in sight. If you dont like how the AWC or POG is doing stuff, then go to a meeting and bring your arguments up in a debate - thats where you will change things.
reply to Pizzaman
by Saleh
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 5:29 PM
info@zi-activism.net
Pizzaman:
the first part of what u wrote is exactly what I hope for - people, at least those who haven't had a chance to yet, talking about what non-violence means for them and then at least getting a start at organizing themselves along those lines. This isn't the whole peace movement, or even the whole TMC part of it, but people who want to talk about non-violence - they should be respected as part of the peace movement, and of course they should respect others as well.
I don't think the pacifist side of the movement has had a chance to organize itself very far - not because anyone is stopping them, just because they haven't got there yet. An example of their self-organizing is the Saturday noon vigils - that's great. I think they can and will do more - I don't think this will happen by doing things for them but by them organizing themselves. That's one of the hopes I have for the talk at the AWC and the picnic.
wrt to your "BUT" : nothing we're (Bette and I) are doing is motivated by not liking anyone or any group in the peace movement, or criticising other people, etc. Responding to a call for dicussion about non-violence by criticising other people would be very unproductive indeed, and divisive, as u point out - I'm in total agreement. However, I don't think criticising others is the only response to a call for discussion. I am positive that a call for discussion can and will lead to non-judgmental sharing of ideas that will allow for different people to organize themselves, not organize the whole movement or take over other people.
I am not sure where ageism is coming in here. I can understand that people might be defensive or have complexes because of their experience with some non-POG parts of the movement, but it's unfair and non-sequitor to stick what Bette and I are calling for in the same category. That's prejudiced. I'm 25 and I don't know Bette's age, but if that prejudice is just because of our age than that's ageism too. Both Bette and I have been unfortunately not that involved with the AWC - Bette's been to a few meetings, I've been to none. Both of us have been involved in the peace movement very much, both as TMC members and otherwise. But we hope to increase our involvement in the AWC. I don't think that has anything to do with criticising any peace activists, being motivited by criticising or attacking people, or excluding people.
Give us a chance, don't pre-judge us. If you don't want to take part in the discussion you don't have to - let people who want to talk about non-violence talk about it and organize themselves on that basis as a part of the broader peace movement, not as a take-over or exclusionary attemp.
U didn't know anyone is stifling people? Everytime I've tried to raise this issue for discussion I've either been mocked, intimidated, or ignored. One person told me "OK, so we just won't have any more marches", for an example of mocking - this person didn't get the idea that it's OK for people to disagree on non-violence and diversity of tactics, that we can still work together even if we don't agree on basic concepts. I know I'm not the only one feeling this. I don't think this is because the "POG-side" (I know it's not POG itself) wants to be oppressive, just that people are being very defensive and have complexes, and obviously there must be good reasons for that. Whatever those reasons are, I don't see what Bette and I have to do with that, or what our call for discussion has to do with it.
I think Evan N seems to understand what Bette and I are saying.
Don't be afraid of pacificsts trying to organize themselves, which I hope is a part of what happens at the picnic and AWC.
Just so you know, Bette did engage the North Side vigil people in the kind of discussion we're trying to encourage, and from what she saw people thanked her for it and are very glad we're doing this. The discussion on the North Side vigil did not result in any guidelines to impose on other people, any attempt to take over other people's events, etc., but a frank and honest discussion about various forms of non-violence that I think some people think is long over-due (for at least themselves). This doesn't mean everyone has to discuss it or everyone has to submit to some rules, just let people who want rules make rules for themselves and talk about non-violence.
Saleh
I think we agree
by pizzaman
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 6:12 PM
Saleh, I totally agree with what Dennis Brutus and you said diversity of tactics is. I only brought up the ageism not about what you said, but from what other people posted. I would have felt so humiliated if I was in that meeting where someone said the babies comment! About stifling: I just wanted to know if what I personally do or say stifles people who do not agree with me. I just want to know the line between disagreeing and stifling. To put it simply, since I do not try to tell groups I disagree with to change thier style of organizing, I'm not one of the stiflers, right?
violence
by pjd
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 6:19 PM
I apologize if this has already been discussed, but I'm confused as to what Saleh and Bette could be referring to when they say "violence". Moving a newspaper dispenser box a few feet is not "violence"; saying "fuck" is not violence. Causing minor delays to motorists is not "violence".
In 1968, in Chicago and DC, antiwar protestors were turning over and burning police cars, and throwing bags of excretement at the police. Now, if such actions has happened here, (I'm not sure property damage is necessarily "violence" compared to US actions in Vietnam/Iraq, but it is very poor tactics) then Saleh's and Bette's criticism would very much be warranted.
I think some people may be making mountains out of molehills. People are dying.
Diversity of tactics, diversity of tactics.
also...
by pjd
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 6:26 PM
A recent check of IMC's in other very active disruptive protest cities (SF, DC, NYC, Portland) aren't revealing the kind of divisiveness we are seeing here in Pittsburgh.
Any ideas why?
to pizzaman
by Saleh
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 6:26 PM
info@zi-activism.net
I'm glad we agree. I won't comment on the babies statement - I've heard different versions of it, and the person who said it should probably explain themselves.
I agree there's a difference between disagreement and stifling - to me the difference is that if you disagree you just say you disagree, and even better explain why. Stifling is where you're passive-aggressive, passive on the one hand by not directly saying you disagree or why (maybe saying "OK" and then doing something behind their back), and agressive on the other hand by making fun of someone, by pressuring them through non-sequitor remarks or other people and therefore intimidating them, or perhaps even ignoring them.
I haven't seen u do this to me on-line, and I don't know who u are off-line so I couldn't say.
Stifling doesn't just have to do with telling other groups what to do, but also with stopping people from raising questions and discussions about what people want to do and not do. This latter form of stifling happens, I think, because of a fear that raising the question about whether someone is comfortable with something or not might automatically mean that some things will be banned, rules made, people will be criticised, etc. Not stifling *does* allow for some people to accept all tactics and some people to accept only some tactics, but for both sides to organize themselves in compatible ways and figure out ways to work together. Without a discussion on what people want, even if what they want is incompatible with someone else's wants, we can't have unity because people will feel stifled.
Does this make sense to u?
when we refer to "violence"
by Saleh
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 6:41 PM
info@zi-activism.net
"what are some steps we can take to address various forms of violence that we may encounter at future peace events" (our message)
As u know the statement assumed there are various definitions of non-violence, that's actually the whole point of the statement.
To most people in the peace movement, police beating people up is violence. This is a form of violence encountered at peace events (sometimes). Addressing this or dealing with it non-violently (variety of definitions) is one of the things we think should come up in the discussions (not to impose one method, but something to talk about).
On the other hand, to some people (not all) in the peace movement, moving newspaper boxes, using profanity and obscenity, or even showing ones angry, or to some people having violent thoughts, is violence. This doesn't mean that these people (pacifists? ultra-non-violents?) have to impose their view of non-violence on others. But if some people move newspaper boxes and think they're being non-violent, the people who think that is indeed violent need to figure out a way to deal with it. That's also what we hope will come about in these discussions.
Not deal with it by being violent or suppressive to people who think it's OK to move newspaper boxes, and not deal with it by criticizing or attacking people who move newspaper boxes, but within their own definition of non-violence, respecting that other people have different definitions.
For an extreme example, one of my favourite contemporary non-violent movements was Abdul Ghaffar Khan's Red Shirt Movement, in the mid 1900s in the same part of the world the Taliban come from. The Red Shirt movement was a mass-movement of non-violence, and at the Kissa Khani massacre the British troops fired on non-violent protesters. The non-violent protesters didn't react by violently fighting back, but by sticking to their non-violent principles and baring their dignity. Many of them died, but eventually the British stopped firing, and the movement grew and succeeded.
I am not saying everyone should do this, but giving an example of how a pacificist definition of non-violence can indeed be successful and people who want to be this way should be accepted. Again, this is not about saying X is non-violence or Y is non-violence, but about realizing that there are different definitions of non-violence, sometimes incompatible, and that we need to find ways where we can work together. We can't do this without at least talking about different ideas on non-violence.
The vigil, AWC meeting, and picnic is only a rough start. If people like this (any people, not necessarily all people) hopefully they will organize better set-up events around this issue.
Saleh
missing one important thing!
by Saleh
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 7:18 PM
info@zi-activism.net
I missed a major part of pjd's post:
"Saleh and Bette's criticism"
dude, where are we criticising anybody?
We're acknowledging that there are different opinions on non-violence
We're calling for discussions where hopefully people can figure out ways to deal with their own definitions of non-violence, and work with both those who have same opinions and different opinions (organizing as one and as many)
none of this is criticism. Just because we're saying there are different definitions of non-violence, or just because one person's non-violence is different from someone else's non-violence, doesn't mean anyone is being criticized, or anyone has to impose on anyone else. Recognizing that there are differences opens up ways for people to work together, criticism is not the necessary outcome of differences. We are different, but we can work together for a better world. Let's do it.
We *can* get along and work together people, even if we have different ideas on non-violence and diversity of tactics. Differences do not automatically mean criticism. Teamsters and turles are not the same but they can work together - pacifists and non-pacifists have different ideas on non-violence, for example, but we can work together. It begins with talking and sharing ideas, and out of that I hope come actions. Not actions or ideas imposed on everyone, but by those who want it, in ways compatible with others and in cooperation and solidarity with *everyone*.
In our greeting we said "to all the wonderful people in the peace movement" - that means we think all people in the peace movement are wonderful, no matter what they think about non-violence. It should have been clear from the beginning that this is not a criticism.
Saleh
violence
by Evan N
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 9:12 PM
To the person above who was talking about how moving a newspaper box isnt violence, nor is saying fuck and messing with motorists, i think we all agree that ISN'T violence
and if people understood that that isn't violence, we wouldn't have a problem. The reason that ordinary people have been coming up to me and asking me if i was "ok when the march on thursday got all violent" is because the media twists and contorts what happens in order to gain more viewers.
The solution to this problem is not to keep on doing what we are doing and believe that miraculously the sheep will have arevelation and realize that the mainstream media whores itself to the government, but to adjust our tactics and use discretion and discipline when deciding what tactics to use. From my viewpoint, that was the entire point of this nonviolence thing Saleh sent out. To rethink what we are doing and tailor it to suit our goals while also giving the media the least possible amount of ammunition that can be twisted,flipped upside down, and contorted to portray us all as violent "peace rioters".
liek someone above said, why make mountains out of molehills, why split hairs over a few choice words in the nonviolence thing when we should be concentration on the ENDS that BOTH SIDES of this argument have at the end of their different MEANS
re: violence
by Saleh
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 9:50 PM
info@zi-activism.net
I think the last part of what Evan N said is right on
The people who ask about "when the march got violent" are, I agree, coming from distortions in the media. I think there is wide agreement in the peace movement about the media distorting M20 and also that the police were wrong, brutal, etc. That's not been the central issue, altho it plays a role as Evan N points out.
but there are actually people that think moving newspaper boxes is violent. I don't think it matters whether they're right or wrong, but that they're part of the peace movement too and we all have to figure out ways to get along without trying to impose on each other's opinions. I hope that through discussions about non-violence the people who have more "restrictive" views can figure out ways to deal with the fact that they share the movement with people with less "restrictive" views. That's where I disagree with Evan N a bit - that there is a real difference of opinion on non-violence (where I disagree with Evan N), and rather than trying to end up with the same means we can work together with different means to the same ends (where I agree with Evan N). This will require people who don't feel comfortable with diversity of tactics or less restrictive definitions of non-violence to figure out how to deal with it, self-enforced (enforced on themselves, not imposed on others).
Saleh
ps re: violence
by Saleh
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 10:22 PM
info@zi-activism.net
ps - I have to disagree with one other thing Evan N said about our message: we're not trying to ask people to curtail/restrict their tactics, because of the media or otherwise. If some people want to do the stuff that might get distorted as violent, that's their business, we just hope they're aware of the other people in the same movement. We're more concerned with a discussion on how to deal with differences at least for those who have more "restrictive" views (I don't like saying restrictive, pacifism can be very creative too, and militant, etc.)
Laugh
by dingo
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 11:49 AM
I can't help but laugh--does anyone else see the humor of everyone being so interested in nobody telling anybody else what to do while we try to get the government to do what we tell them to do?
:) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Depressing
by Sam
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 12:48 PM
The anti-war movement is disintegrating because a handful of people want to use 3/20 to justify enforcing their agenda.
Thanks.
Depressing
by Sam
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 12:49 PM
The anti-war movement is disintegrating because a handful of people want to use 3/20 to justify enforcing their agenda.
Iraqi children thank you.
Depressing
by Sam
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 12:49 PM
The anti-war movement is disintegrating because a handful of people want to use 3/20 to justify enforcing their agenda.
To those people (you know who you are): Iraqi children thank you.
Maybe this isn't only depressing -- maybe there's a good side to it too!
by rwh
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 1:43 PM
I'd like to thank Saleh and everyone else from POG, TMC and affinity groups that have posted here for your collective clarity and effective communication. To me as an observer, this actually seems to be the beginning of a fruitful dialogue about the multiple interpretations of non-violence. I think we're running into a version (if you'll pardon the not entirely accurate analogy) of the Malcolm/Martin division that came up during the civil rights movement. I think that these discussions will INEVITABLY arise in movements of this nature and maybe we can all take this as a sign of the growth of our local movement and not as one of disintegration or something else depressing. It seems to me that one thing that might really impact the future of this movement locally is how we deal with this issue among ourselves--do we let it become divisive or do we, each of us, attempt to make space for some of the uncomfortableness that we seem so eager to thrust upon the larger Pgh community. In saying that we each have some tolerance for discomfort, I'm not saying that we should accept what Saleh has termed "stifling" of our or another's point of view, but merely that we be able to sit with the tension between different points of view, whether we find ourselves on the "more restrictive" or "less restrictive" side of the debate or in-between.
We want a united front but also a movement that represents a diversity of viewpoints and in which each of us can find our own place. It seems to me that there is ALREADY a bit of tension built in to this situation. So be it. For the record, I saw the newspaper box thing and previous similar incidents in other marches and at first, like the "more restrictive" folks, I was a bit disturbed by the incidents, particularly as I wondered how they'd be perceived by the public after being warped through the media. However, many of the posts on this site have caused me to do some serious reflection on MY OWN presuppositions about what is and is not non-violence and I've surprised myself by coming around to much more of a "less restrictive" perspective recently. Not that I intend to upend any newspaper boxes myself, but I look forward to marching this afternoon and in the future alongside the same folks who've been upending them. I think if any of us wants to march in a group of people who think EXACTLY like we do about non-vioence, we'll be marching in a GROUP OF ONE, and personally, I'd rather march with all y'all!
See you out there soon in this butt-ass cold weather!
Cool down a bit, people
by Daniel Papasian
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 1:44 PM
dpapasia@andrew.cmu.edu
Hold it, people. All Saleh and Bette simply asked that things be discussed. Discussion is the friend of truth, not the enemy. Nobody should fear that, in an open discussion where all are welcome, anything negative will result.
I'm disgusted by the headline here of "TMC breaking solidarity." If solidarity means to be silent and never question anything, than solidarity is an enemy of dissent, not a friend.
Next thing you know we'll be labelling the TMC as "un-American."
--
by --
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 9:05 PM
"Hold it, people. All Saleh and Bette simply asked that things be discussed. Discussion is the friend of truth, not the enemy. Nobody should fear that, in an open discussion where all are welcome, anything negative will result. "
It's true that is what there statement said. On the other hand they are part of a group of people who have been working for months to advance a agenda within the movement. That is why you see such a negative reaction. I believe if you read some of the comments people refer to the fucked up stuff being done.
Saleh has lied in his statements. That is pretty obvious by reading just this post.
Mixed Feelings
by Sam
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 10:41 PM
I don't see a problem with a dialogue regarding tactics per se. And if that's what people are really looking for, go for it.
I just fear that some people -- not necessarily Saleh or Bette -- will seize the opportunity to try to enforce their own agenda.
What really made me wary of this possibility was the comment referring to POG as "babies" or "children". Whoever said it needs to be made aware that this comment was arrogant, divisive, and stupid.
re: agendas and lies
by Saleh
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 12:34 AM
info@zi-activism.net
I'm not sure how Bette and I can be associated with any agenda within the movement, or even anyone with an agenda within the movement. Our statement came because of our concerns with what we are seeing in the movement which we think can be worked at through discussions on non-violence (I already went over these), not because we want to criticize anyone or take-over anything or force anything on anyone.
I'd like to challenge "--" to show their evidence for how either Bette or I have been working for months to advance an agenda in the peace movement, or how anything I've posted has been a lie.
You've admitted that the content of the message is not what the negative reactions are from. If you don't have any evidence that there's more to the message (i.e. it's part of a pre-existing agenda), then your negative reactions are not from the facts but from fears (hmmm - now I wonder why that would be a bad thing....).
to Sam:
I also don't see how our statement could be part of anyone seizing an opportunity to try to *enforce* their own agenda, since it just calls for a discussion recognizing that there are different views. Rather, our statement does call for space for all views, which would work against any attempt at enforcing anything on those who don't want it.
I'm confused
by John Lacny
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 6:50 PM
I was just made aware of the existence of this debate, and I must say that as someone who has not been at any of these meetings or at any of the planning for most of these events, the reason for this debate is pretty opaque to me. Saleh's and Bette's statement as quoted on this site seems remarkably innocuous to have attracted the vitriol that it did (before you bite my head off, go back and read it word-for-word, and put yourself in the position of someone who hasn't been privy to all the interorganizational wranglings!), so there must be issues behind the scenes that have gotten people's blood up -- you just wouldn't necessarily know what the big deal was if you were just reading this, the way I am.
I would also agree that, just as we always should hash out our disagreements among ourselves but present a united front to the bourgeois media, we should all also be careful about using fora like these -- which can be read by anyone, including the police -- so casually like this, to hash out personal/organizational/sectarian shitstorms.
Take my advice for what it's worth, coming as it is from someone who has not been as involved in this movement as he should be, though I would like to get more involved if possible, as soon as I find a time-efficient way to be more effective in it.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)