community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Meeting to discuss the future of local activism
by david meieran
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 11:25 AM
Are you eager to discuss where we are now that the U.S. has occupied Iraq and talk about some of the things we can do to stop it? Wondering how we can inject our critique of the state, class, militarism, racism, etc., into the debate so as to broaden the antiwar movement? Want to toss around ideas on how we can make the most effective use of limited resources? If your answer to those questions is "yes," then read on...
-------------------
A PROPOSAL
-------------------
WHAT?
An informal meeting to brainstorm future goals and strategies for local activism relating to the occupation of Iraq as well as Bush's "endless war" and it's effects on civil liberties and social spending.
WHERE?
Either the Thomas Merton Center or Project 1877, t.b.d.
WHEN?
Early evening on May 7, 8 or 9, t.b.d.
WHY?
(1) To generate a thoughtful, public analysis of what worked and what didn't in recent organizing against the war.
(2) To articulate a set of goals and strategies for local activism as the movement enters its next phase.
(3) To build solidarity among the various groups and individuals working to end the war at home and the war abroad.
WHAT'S NEEDED TO MAKE THE MEETING HAPPEN?
(1) Sufficient interest.
==> Please email me if you support the idea for this meeting and/or have suggestions about how to make it happen.
(2) Two experienced facilitators.
==>Please volunteer yourself or suggest others who might be interested in facilitating.
a. Since I believe facilitated meetings work best when facilitators act only as facilitators, I discourage you from volunteering if you have a compelling desire to speak at the meeting.
b. Regarding the final choice of facilitators and the structure of the meeting: I propose that those decisions be left for the group to decide at the meeting itself.
PLEASE NOTE
1. This message has been sent, initially, to POG, AWC, RESYST, Blacks Against the War, Zi, and posted on Pgh IndyMedia; please forward it to anyone whom you think might be interested.
2. I believe that the meeting should take place soon, while last week's event is fresh in our minds and the discussion is lively. (see http://www.indypgh.org/news/2003/04/6001_comment.php#6081) However, I am quite open to scheduling it for a later date should a sufficient number of voices so desire.
3. Though the AWC has a meeting scheduled for 4pm, 5/10, I believe a non-partisan meeting might be more productive.
4. Though I recently started working with the AWC, I'm proposing this meeting as an individual activist, not as a "representative" of the AWC.
5. I support direct action and I have no vested interest in whether or not AWC plays a leadership role in future events.
6. Since I am a newcomer to the local activist scene and unknown to many of you, visit http://www.heartofdarkness.org/bio.html if you would like to know who is transmitting this message.
Thanks for your interest.
David Meieran
Occupation
by OG Readmore
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 5:54 PM
1.) there is nothing we can do to stop US occupation for the next x months
2.) good, i'd rather have the U.S. occupy Iraq for the time being than some Islamic-fascist (think Iran) fill the power vaccum.
Why would people rather see the US leave Iraq than a secular, liberal government put in place that won't oppress the Iraqi people? If the US leaves before things start to reach some sort of equilibrium, fundamentalist muslims who back terrorism, and will do everything possible to hijack the peace process btw. Palestinians and Israelis will come to power.
We as liberals should be FOR a secular/liberal government in Iraq for the benefit of the world not to mention all of the Iraqi people.
I understand wanting the US to withdraw as soon as possible, but everything out of the administration's mouths to date has stated that they agree with this demand. They should be held to their word, but not until the power vaccum is filled by a liberal transitional government thus creating an atmosphere for free elections in the future.
re: Occupation
by Saleh
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 6:08 PM
That's exactly the kind of thinking that got the Ba'ath party in power in the first place - except instead of Muslim fundamentalists it was Communists who the US was afraid of. Saddam was lauded as a secular liberal - how can any imposed regime *not* oppress the Iraqi people if it hasn't been a regime that comes from the Iraqi people's self-liberation? How can you *impose* a regime that won't *oppress*?
Ironically Falluja is the town where 50 years ago the Communist Party-lead oil strikers long-march on Baghdad was stopped by the monarchy. As many know 10 yrs later the monarchy sent Gen Qassem to put down anti-US protests in Jordan, but instead he turned his tanks on the monarchy and set up some CP members in the cabinet. The CP grew to around 200,000 people, they went ultra-left and massacred Turkmen in Kurdish areas, and so Qassem cracked down on them, but the State Dept head Foster still said Communism in Iraq was the most dangerous situation in the world (kind of like how another State Dept head - Albright - said Saddam was the most dangerous man in the world....)
In the Baathist coup the US gave a list of 4000 CP members for the government to kill.
Iran isn't an Islamic-fascist regime, altho there are certainly Islamo-fascist elements in Iran. But the Iranian people are using their traditions and Islam for self-liberation, it's obvious that progress is not only possible but happening there. The same can happen in Iraq. Just because protesters use Islamist slogans doesn't mean they're fascists - there have been progressive Islamic movements in history, such as Abdul Ghaffar Khan's Red Shirts in India/Pakistan and Sinoussi in Libya. Don't forget that the largest communist parties outside of the Soviet bloc (pre Sino-Soviet split) have been in Muslim countries, such as Indonesia and Iraq.
Using Islamophobia or redphobia to justify imposing liberal regimes will only lead to more Saddam's, less world peace, and no justice for the Iraqi people.
Islamophobia
by OG Readmore
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 6:30 PM
I apologize to anyone who interpreted my post as against Islam. Not true. I'm against Fundamentalist Islamic governments, just as I am against Fundamentalist Christian governments, or fundamentalist religious governments of any kind. Church and State should always be seperate.
I know that it was that type of fear that spurred the US to back Saddam, but it doesn't mean the US can't learn from its mistakes either.
re: Islamophobia
by Saleh
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 7:02 PM
(ps - sorry this got off-topic, I'll be at the meeting to listen and learn, not sure how comfortable I am sharing my own observations at this point as I haven't done as much as many of the other people who will prolly be there)
of course the US can learn from it's mistakes - but *you* said that if the US leaves now Muslim fundamentalists who support terrorism will take over, which is exactly the kind of Islamophobia the US gov't is practicing, and just like the redphobia they had earlier. Trust the Iraqi people, not the occupation.
Facilitation
by wheatpaster
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 8:01 PM
Thanks, Saleh, for saying smart things. On the subject of this proposed discussion, it seems to me Etta has expressed an interest in facilitating. She is a damn good activist and would be great in addition to David at conducting this sucker.
yay!
by Rebecca R.
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 8:34 PM
malekincat@earthlink.net
I just want to that say I am also totally in favor of this meeting idea and I think Etta would do an awesome job as facilitator. Go for it.
And how about ignoring all the argumentative posts on this thread from now on? If people don't agree, they don't need to come, it's pretty simple.
IT OVER !!!
by An Inactive Activist
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 8:46 PM
If you are to this point the momentum is gone. The life is out of the body. The movement has gone total Karen Quinland on us. You have nothing left to activate. There is no meaningful activisism in Da Burgh. But we should all still go to the meeting for some free coffee and munchies. You will have coffee and munchies, right? Otherwise I am not coming. I think that if you had better snacks at these events people would be more interested in being invovled in the movement.
stuff
by Saleh
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 9:10 PM
I endorse etta as a facilitator - I don't know Dave that well but I'm sure he'd be good too as he's taken a lot of initiative with this so prolly has a good idea of the good stuff that can come from it
to the person who said there's no point: the movement may have quieted down a bit, but the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not over, and we can still change what the US is doing there. Talking about what we can do now is great, especially if some great activism comes out of it.
Love OG, s/he's a liberal
by Sam
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 9:41 PM
The UN should be managing Iraq's transition, not the U.S. And the Iraqi people (not the American people) should determine who will govern them, and how they will govern.
Saleh really said it all. There's absolutely no reason to believe the U.S. won't just install another Shah. This administration has shown (with its laughable WMD claims, for instance) that it's not at all afraid that people will catch on to its blatant lies.
Also, the sanctions should be lifted, UN inspectors should return, Kurdistan should be granted independence, and the U.S. should be made to pay reparations.
re: facilitation, etta, etc.
by David
Thursday, May. 01, 2003 at 9:53 PM
dmeieran@andrew.cmu.edu
etta sounds great - I located her email address on another thread and sent her a message. someone else emailed her as well.
wheatpaster, saleh: sorry i didn't say this in the proposal: i have no desire to facilitate the meeting. morever, since I'm a relative newcomer to the local activist scene it's better that i don't facilitate.
inactive activist: i would gladly supply you with coffee and munchies if it meant converting you back to "active" status.
don't mistake a short nap for a "karen quinland." the movement is recharging, refocusing, and taking stock of its successes and failures. in other cities across the country, a new wave of activism is just beginning: be sure to visit indymedia-nyc on monday and tuesday to read reports of "operation homeland resistance" -- two days of massive cd and direct action throughout nyc led by people of color, racial justice and immigrant's rights activists and organizations. i'll post their call to action on a separate thread.
no, the movement isn't dead. just you wait.
Meeting Structure
by pjd
Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 11:32 AM
This months Clamor Magazine has a good article on facilitated-concensus meetings versus other collective decision making processes. Ther is a copy in the Merton Center. I will try to post a scanned image of the article when I get home.
re: meeting structure
by david
Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 12:17 PM
thanks, p.j.d. Clamor doesn't put its articles on line so it's great that you copied Treloar's piece for the group. Any chance you scan it for electronic distribution?
Here are some other resources that some folks might be interested in:
-- For a comprehensive account, see Food Not Bombs Publishing's fantastic on-line booklet about consensus:
http://consensus.net/ocaccontents.html
-- For a one page-intro go visit Direct Action to Stop the War (SF's inspiring group) or ACT UP (my alma mater):
http://www.actagainstwar.org/article.php?id=11
http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/Consensus.html
one thing, though. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure folks want this to be an "organizing" meeting that involves formal decision-making (apart from the structure and purpose of the meeting). Of course, there's no reason why an informal discussion forum can't turn into a call to action: in fact, I bet a number of us secretly hope for that.
things
by person
Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 3:24 PM
i think this is a great idea. i only hope that we dont repeat the mistakes which put us in this present position of a dying (or irrelevant) movement to begin with.
i need a diaper
by an old man
Friday, May. 02, 2003 at 9:09 PM
Quick someone get me some Depends.. I'm all excited!
I say that we smash the state! Smash the state! Let's all piss in the rich people's soups! Let's all hocker in their wine glasses!
But we don't want a piece of their pie. It's corrupted and viled by their own presence!
Bye bye. I am going back to my nursing home to rest.
Clamor Article Page 1
by pjd
Saturday, May. 03, 2003 at 1:52 PM
consensuspg1.jpg, image/jpeg, 2272x3012
Here is the Clamor Article by M. Treloar. Reprinted under fair use, I'm sure he or Clamor won't mind. Scanned jpeg image files. Page 1
Clamor Article Page 2
by pjd
Saturday, May. 03, 2003 at 2:13 PM
Page 2 - this is slow with a dial up!
Clamor Article Page 3
by pjd
Saturday, May. 03, 2003 at 2:23 PM
concensuspg3.jpg, image/jpeg, 2256x1446
Page 3
Retry Page 2
by pjd
Saturday, May. 03, 2003 at 3:01 PM
concensuspg2.jpg, image/jpeg, 2248x3075
Consensus Process
by Dan P.
Sunday, May. 04, 2003 at 4:01 PM
Having never been in an activism group of sufficient size I've never really seen any failure in what they describe as consensus process, but I agree that for anything of sufficient size (more than 15 people or so) something better is needed.
Personally, and I realize that I'll sound really un-cool in saying this, I'm a fan of Robert's Rules of Order. Robert's Rules are exactly what you make of them, and if you're cool about things and have excellent people running the meeting, I think most people would find that not only is it fun but it's empowering- it makes everyone feel like equals, regardless of who they are or what they bring to the table. Anyone can make a motion, anyone can speak up, and everyone can vote.
meeting schedule for 5/9
by david
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 1:28 AM
Quick heads up: the meeting is scheduled for Friday, 5/9, 7pm at Project 1877. A formal announcement will be posted tomorrow.
consesus
by Saleh
Monday, May. 05, 2003 at 1:30 AM
consensus rocks, no matter what the size is, as long as there's a good facilitator and people are up-and-up with the issues. Roberts Rules to me is more of a last-chance resort for a confrontational or grossly unequal situation. Consensus has been done for huge meetings in the past, as long as people know what's on the table and have had a chance to develop their thots on the issues, and as long as the facilitator can be sharp about pulling out key differences, I think it'll work great. I'm cool with consensus for this meeting.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)