WRL Homepage • WRL Programs • WRL Literature • WRL Actions • WRL Employment • About WRL
|
Homepages: |
|
Pacifism, Antiracism and WRL I disagree with David McReynolds (March-April) that the primary focus of War Resisters League has shifted. I was one of five people, including present and past staff and Executive Committee members, who made the “Proposal for Reconciliation” that passed at the February National Committee meeting. The first point stated clearly, “The War Resisters League reaffirms its historic mission as an antiwar organization committed to nonviolence as the engine of social change and to removing the root causes of war.” The second point, quoted in Frida Berrigan’s article on the meeting, concluded, “… if we wish to end war, we need to both be more diverse and work with more diverse communities.” There was overwhelming support for those two points, along with strong support for retaining the ROOTS program: David was one of only four who voted to sever ROOTS, and 13 voted to keep it. WRL has always made the connection between opposing war and working to remove the causes of war. That is written into the statement agreed to by all sections of War Resisters’ International. No one is saying that racism is the only cause of war, only that it is one of the many causes of war. One of the reasons I am so committed to WRL is that it is an organization where I can be a pacifist, nonviolent activist, feminist, antiracist and vegetarian war tax resister. And speaking of feminism, 30 years ago, when I was one of the young feminists trying to change WRL, I heard some of the same arguments: “Patriarchy isn’t the only cause of war” (even though we did not say it was), and “You’re not committed to real nonviolence—if you were, you wouldn’t talk so much about your anger.” We do face challenges in WRL. And as Frida wrote, we have set up various ways to work on that. But most importantly, those of us with a long history in WRL need to work on how to be committed to our principles—nonviolence and antimilitarism—but open to change and growth. —Joanne Sheehan I write as one who has been associated the WRL since the mid-1960s when I joined as a member. I was also on the staff of the National Office briefly in 1969. Thereafter, I served one or two terms on the WRL Executive Committee and later one term on the National Committee. I write as one who has also had broad experience in the wider peace movement for more than three decades as both a staff member and board member of other peace organizations. Among other things, I served as a Field Secretary on the American Friends Service Committee for more than 15 years, have served as an AFSC board member for an additional six years and served on the National Committee of the national Nuclear Freeze Campaign through much of the 1980s. I now serve as the general counsel to the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Perhaps most importantly, I write as a long-time friend of WRL and a financial contributor to WRL. David McReynolds’ article is most disturbing. Because of David’s long association with WRL, his resignation should be treated with the greatest of seriousness. (It is certainly treated with great seriousness by me.) The issues David raises—of the alleged misdirection of WRL by a supposedly politically correct caucus—are deeply troubling. My purpose in writing is to urge that WRL take much more seriously the issues that David is raising. I can think of at least three separate reasons why WRL should pay more attention than it seems to have done thus far to [those] issues. First, in his article, David specifically mentions other peace organizations that have disappeared, gone out of business, due to capitulation to such political correctness. I myself have seen much the same thing. Our concern for the future of the organization counsels that we heed David’s concerns. Second, the source of the concern—that is, that this is David McReynolds speaking—should counsel respect on our part. Third, to be blunt, I am concerned that David may be correct in his assessments. What, specifically should WRL do at this juncture? At the very least there must be a much fuller airing of the issues presented than there was in the March-April issue of the Nonviolent Activist. Giving David 800 words is not nearly enough. A full airing would include, at the very least, a longer and more detailed presentation by both (or all, or many) sides of the issue. WRL is a democratic organization. We elect our Executive Committee; we elect the National Committee. A democratic organization can only function with an informed membership. I would want to see a full recitation from David about his concerns (and I do mean full, with no length restrictions whatever), a full rebuttal from the other side and perhaps yet another full set of responses by each side to what the other has written. (Remember the eggman and walrus debate in WIN magazine that David did with Jerry Rubin about 35 years ago?) It would be hard for a WRL member like me not to draw an adverse inference from a reluctance on the part of the NC to give such a detailed airing to [these] issues. That is, the natural conclusion I would draw to not having the debate I suggest is to say to myself, “What are they hiding?” Until I see such a debate, I shall stop contributing to WRL. I have also instructed my lawyer to change my will to delete the provision for a generous bequest to WRL. —Jerry Elmer Having read Frida Berrigan’s article on the National Committee meeting and David McReynold’s resignation article, I must admit to feeling that there was not quite enough information for me to really understand what was going on. I must also confess that while I support the War Resisters League, it seems much too East Coast-oriented and not particularly relevant to either our local peace group (Yamhill Valley Peacemakers) or statewide organization (Oregon PeaceWorks). We send money to WRL kind of like we pay the 50 percent of our federal income taxes that doesn’t go to war: Philosophically it makes sense, but it is hard to see how it makes a difference in our rural county. I have no idea what is printed in AWOL and know only a little about ROOTS from reading NVA, but I am excited and pleased that WRL is working with young people. They are the future of our movement. Personally, I do not have a problem if AWOL does not meet the pure definition of “pacifism” (whatever that is). In my younger days in Berkeley I fought against the war in Vietnam and for Peoples’ Park with no regard for pacifism, believing the revolution was just around the corner. When my naivete became obvious, I was drawn to pacifism by the principled example of those I saw practicing it. I think WRL is better off by working with young people who may not be totally convinced by pacifist philosophy and by practicing (not preaching) the incredible power of nonviolent activism. David seems concerned with the League vanishing due to a lack of ideological purity. I am more concerned that it will vanish because too much of the membership qualifies for AARP and we are not being inclusive enough to bring in more young people. —Mark Davis David has always been great about trying to hold discordant things together by hook or by crook, so if he felt things were so bad as to occasion this, then the situation must be very bad indeed. From the time I first encountered WRL in the early seventies, he was one of the few folks who was willing and able to think “politically” about issues and let the chips fall where they may. Though I’ve been out of what he’s been going through of late, I have seen and can imagine how the “politically correct” pathology has grown. (I’m a former WRL and WIN Magazine staffer and formerly served on the WRL National Committee.) He referenced Norma Becker, Jim Peck and Igal Roodenko, but he could also have raised Mandy Carter and William Douthard. I remember vividly a WRL conference at Park College north of Kansas City in the mid-’70s. When the catering crew, all dressed in white with turbans, brought out the first day’s macrobiotic fare, I remember William saying “I’m out of here” and leading a meat-eaters’ caucus down the hill to get burgers at every opportunity. What would the “politically correct” crowd have said about that—and wouldn’t William have blown the whistle on their race-baiting and the other-worldly contortions of where their liberal white guilt leads them? If an idea is baloney or a program smoke-and-mirrors without much there there (as it seems ROOTS might be, reading between the lines of their two-page article in the same issue as David’s essay), then somebody ought to be able to blow the whistle on it, no matter the color of the protagonists involved. The fight in the movement has been, or ought to have been, to bring underrepresented folks in on an equal basis, respect their perspectives, and give them an opportunity to excel and lead—not a blanket immunity from the critical eye that ought to be visited on any idea or project. Nothing is less seemly or so counter-productive as white liberal guilt run amok—it does nobody of any race any good and, indeed, as David pointed out, drags organizations down. Seems to me that there’s a tradition of spinning off projects from WRL (and Fellowship of Reconciliation) tutelage—either when they had grown too big or too diverse or broadened beyond their pacifist foundings. The ACLU. Congress of Racial Equality. Washington Office of Africa, etc. Why couldn’t ROOTS, if it was something real, have just done the same? —Patrick Lacefield A couple of years ago the STARC (Students Transforming and Resisting Corporations) Alliance, a majority white student network, began doing antiracist work. We know that this process is complex and difficult, but it is ultimately rewarding and necessary. We applaud the War Resisters League for taking on this challenge. Regarding David McReynolds’ resignation: We too believe that nonviolence is best for creating social change, as do many who incorporate antiracism into their organizing. Antiracism and nonviolence are not conflicting methodologies. Antiwar organizing is not diluted when antiracism in incorporated into the work, rather it makes the work stronger. It opens space for dialogues about racism, oppression and privilege. It validates the perspectives of people in communities most affected by oppression and holds organizations accountable to those they represent. Antiracist organizing recognizes that people of color and low-income people are disproportionately affected by war. These groups are the most targeted by recruiters and generally serve in the lowest ranks of the military. If we are to build a broad movement for peace and justice, we must learn to take leadership from, and struggle with, those most affected by war and injustice. We would also like to express our support for ROOTS and AWOL Magazine. AWOL speaks to an audience too often marginalized by the mainstream antiwar movement. It is for and by young people, particularly youth of color and low-income youth. It speaks to them ways others cannot by validating their experiences, often those of violence, and providing alternatives to the violence, sexism and homophobia promoted by the corporate media and the military. As we continue to struggle to be an antiracist organization, we look forward to continuing to support groups like ROOTS. We recognize that antiracism does not have one formula and STARC supports the continuation of open and honest dialogue about these issues. We hope that the WRL will continue to challenge racism both within its own organization and within the broader movement for peace and justice. —STARC Alliance National Support Committee David McReynolds was quite correct in wanting to keep the organization focused on the one issue its name implies: resisting war. There are numerous other groups with specific agendas to address racism, poverty, etc. Don’t dilute the WRL by going off in different directions. What is debatable: Could McReynolds accomplish more by staying with the directorate and exerting pressure for his ideas from the inside? I guess that is his decision to make. The recent demonstrations prove that there are very many people around the world and in the United States who oppose war. Also proven is unfortunately the fact that they have virtually no effect on government. These numbers do however indicate a potential for change. If all the antiwar people could be brought together under a single leadership [umbrella, then a PAC could be built that could affect the Congress. Here again it would have to be around the single issue of opposing war; waging peace. You already have some of the machinery for organizing such a party, and you know better than I whether such an organization is feasible. But I’m afraid if steps aren’t taken to stop the Bush regime’s lust for war, we can look forward to more Iraqs. —Dennis Hutchings About 25 years ago I was a Vermont delegate to the ACLU’s Biennial Conference in Philadelphia. Some speakers argued eloquently that decent housing, food, medical care, and a job are also fundamental rights in a wealthy democratic society. The ACLU should broaden its mandate and fight for those rights as well, they said, and I found myself caught up in their vision of a better and more just society. Two of my neighbors in the meeting weren’t buying this. They were Texans, white men in their 40s or late 30s, and they spoke with an accent I associated more with football or right-wing politics than with civil liberties and progressive causes. I wondered whether their bourbon and hunting rifles were outside in a pickup or back home in Dallas. They thought the ACLU should stick to the First Amendment. This other stuff wasn’t really civil liberties; “socialist medicine” wasn’t for them and providing jobs is for the private sector, not government. They were pretty conservative, even borderline reactionaries. Why didn’t they shut up and let the rest of us get on with constructing the future? But as the meeting dragged on, I began to wonder what life was like for civil libertarians in Dallas. Harder than in Vermont, probably. And somehow it hit me: These “reactionary” guys, these “rednecks” I was annoyed with, were the American Civil Liberties Union in Texas! When books were banned in the schools, they’d be the ones to fight the censorship; almost surely, they’d fight racist threats and police brutality as well. Maybe they didn’t agree about health care as a right—but they’d be on my side in almost all the problems we’d face. Disagree or not at that Biennial, those guys from Texas were my friends. I could and did argue with them about some things, but I had to respect them. Remembering that workshop I still cringe a bit; my anti-Texas (anti-Southern?) prejudices are all too evident. But I think—I hope—I learned something that day. I remember it now, when hard words are spoken within the peace community — words like “arrogant,” “liar” and “racist.” I understand very well getting angry when our “comrades” don’t do the right thing as we see it. When that happens, I try to remember the ACLU men from Texas and think about who is really on my side. It helps. These are tough times. The peace movement needs unity, but often it’s hard to come by. I want to say, “Friends, think about those guys from Texas.” We can disagree about many things, but let’s keep those disagreements in perspective: We agree on most of the big ones. We’re on the same team, and we have to work together. After all, the better world we’re trying to create belongs to all of us. —John Lamperti I used to get regular snail mail and lots of inspiration from the old leadership. It has grown very weak. The website was wholly anemic during the Bush ascendency. We put up a fight here in Naples; I have always been proud to tell people I belong to WRL. Pacifist principles are absolutely essential for WRL. Its name and raison d’etre are wholly pacifist. Racial problems have gone into a Malcolm-X mode after the death of King. Very few people I know who are pushing for reparations, etc., have any of the ideals of King’s adaptation of ahimsa, satyagraha or pure civil disobedience. I think David is correct in taking an absolute position on this matter. I hold a hope that he and others might do something to salvage things on 339 Lafayette Street. As sacred as the spot is, perhaps a new location with staff who believe in the founding principles could make a go. Maybe Muste’s farm? —John P. Dwyer I wanted to take this political moment in time to tell you about how much I love working with your organization. My connection to WRL is through your program, ROOTS and its organizer, Asif Ullah. This year I am a student at Portland State University working with a vibrant student activist group—we support local high school students in distributing pro-peace information in their schools and learning about alternatives to military recruitment. Asif generously takes the time to check in with us by phone once a week and always has encouraging words and good thoughts on moving forward creatively. We met Asif this past August at the STARC student conference where he presented us with this campaign idea, encouraging us as white college students to consider ourselves as allies with a needed role in moving ROOTS forward. For the past four years I have been a youth and student organizer, last year serving as the national STARC organizer. Asif has his finger on the pulse of the national youth and student movement and helped us bridge our antiwar sentiments into action. —Laura Close |
WRL Homepage • WRL Programs • WRL Literature • WRL Actions • WRL Employment • About WRL
