riddle@im4u.UUCP (08/25/85)
Something I happened to be reading today reminded me of this discussion of
the Witness for Peace delegation that put itself in danger in a war zone on
the Nicaraguan-Costa Rican border. Someone compared Witness for Peace with
the black Freedom Riders in the civil rights movement in the South, and
someone else said that there was a crucial difference: the blacks were just
going where they had a right to be, whereas Witness for Peace went to great
and artificial lengths to put itself in a hot spot and stage a media event.
Well, if some of you feel the comparison is inapt, how about comparing
Witness for Peace with the *Northern white* freedom riders? Here's what
Eldridge Cleaver had to say about them in his excellent essay, "The White
Race and its Heroes":
The third stage [in the white youth movement] began when white
youth started joining Negro [civil rights] demonstrations in large
numbers. The presence of whites among the demonstrators
emboldened the Negro leaders and allowed them to use tactics they
never would have been able to employ with all-black troops. The
racist conscience of America is such that murder does not register
as murder, really, unless the victim is white. And it was only
when the newspapers and magazines started carrying stories of
white demonstrators being beaten and maimed by mobs and police
that the public began to protest.
This principle is the same today. Our discussion about "American hostages"
has missed the point: Witness for Peace would prefer for us to be less
concerned about its safety than about that of the Central American victims
of the war. If a group of Nicaraguans or Costa Ricans had gone down the
river that day, they would have been subjected to far worse dangers at the
hands of the contras, most likely without a peep from the U.S. press; yet
U.S. citizens' safety is somehow treated as special and newsworthy. Witness
for Peace did not create this situation, but like the civil rights activists
before them its members feel obliged to make use of it if it will help end
the evils they oppose.
There are also deeper similarities between Witness for Peace and the civil
rights movement of the sixties: both of them are rooted in the American
tradition of pacifism, from its Quaker origins through its refinement and
application by Martin Luther King and others. The (predominantly
Christian) members of Witness for Peace feel compelled to respond to evil by
"witnessing" it in the Quaker sense: to go to the source of the evil,
understand it, even subject oneself to it if need be, and then to return and
pass on what one has learned to others. The first Witness for Peace
delegates went to Nicaragua as temporary observers only, but they soon
discovered that their very presence in an area caused the contras to reduce
their activity somewhat. Once that became clear, Witness for Peace felt
obligated to expand their program to include a permanent presence in
Nicaraguan war zones. Their putting themselves directly into disputed areas
is the latest step in this program.
As for the criticism that Witness for Peace "stages media events," that's
hardly criticism. People who work for peace should "stage" *more* media
events! Were Gandhi's salt march and Martin Luther King's actions
"staged?" Were they directed in part toward the media? Of course they
were. But the evils that Gandhi and King were fighting were real, and their
"media events" were merely planned demonstrations of that reality. If there
were no contra war, Witness for Peace would have had nothing more than an
uneventful boat ride.
But Witness for Peace does not depend entirely or even primarily on the
media to get its message out. I know what I do about them because I have
met and talked with some of them. Chances are there are Witness for Peace
delegates in your town, too, giving talks about what they've seen in
Nicaragua. If you don't like what they're doing or don't believe what I'm
saying, then by all means attend one of their meetings and talk with them
about it.
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@ut-sally.UUCP
--- riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle%zotz@ut-sally, riddle%im4u@ut-sallywfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (08/26/85)
In article <463@im4u.UUCP> riddle@im4u.UUCP writes: >Well, if some of you feel the comparison is inapt, how about comparing >Witness for Peace with the *Northern white* freedom riders? Here's what >Eldridge Cleaver had to say about them ... > > ... The > racist conscience of America is such that murder does not register > as murder, really, unless the victim is white. ... > >This principle is the same today. ... >If a group of Nicaraguans or Costa Ricans had gone down the >river that day, they would have been subjected to far worse dangers at the >hands of the contras, most likely without a peep from the U.S. press; yet >U.S. citizens' safety is somehow treated as special and newsworthy. ... One of the big problems I have with the Witness for Peace action is that the freedom riders were clearly working against the status quo; the state and local government forces clearly supported these acts of violence on the streets and in the courts. Exposing violence in the South put direct pressure on the people in power to change things. But in Nicaragua (as in El Salvador), the people ordering the brutality wash their hands of it: contra leaders have clearly stated time and again that they have no policy of violence and that these murders are isolated acts committed by individuals. Thus the leaders operate from a position of moral superiority clearly intended to convince the USA public that these fellows ARE just like our founding fathers (heh, heh ... does that mean good ol' George Washington supervised the murder of Tory children, the rape of Tory women, and the torture of political prisoners?). Whatever the facts in the case, the American public as a whole apparently believes that the contras are morally upright Joes a whole lot like the Green Mountain Boys, and that isolated violent acts are to be expected because these people are after all barbarians. But if we stand behind the Prez on this one the contras will win and immediately institute a paradise of democracy, trickle-down benefits for all, and supply-side economics. Right. The bottom line for me is this: what exactly are the Witness for Peace action going to accomplish? Whose minds in our society is it going to change, and whose minds in Nicaraguan society is it going to change? My contention is no one's, so the energy is wasted and people are laying their lives on the line for no good reason. I respect the Friends for their courage and dedication in past situations, I just happen to think they're wrongheaded on this one. >As for the criticism that Witness for Peace "stages media events," that's >hardly criticism. ... >Were Gandhi's salt march and Martin Luther King's actions >"staged?" ... >But the evils that Gandhi and King were fighting were real, and their >"media events" were merely planned demonstrations of that reality. ... Mr. and Mrs. America saw the bodies of the murdered nuns in El Salvador being lifted from their grave. Mr. and Mrs. America saw the Sandinista sympathiser eat rice, lie down in his grave and have his throat brutally cut by his contra captors. Did Mr. and Mrs. America change their minds about the contras or the thugs in El Salvador? Do you think the actions of a group perceived by many Americans as leftist religious nuts will go any further toward changing peoples' minds? -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly