DRUUMM - DRUUMM Conversations

11 Jun 2010 7:20 PM

Quote

Reply # 357718 on 349904

Anonymous member

In response to President Morales' announcement, I think that the invitation from Puente/NDLON (who are the *main* organizers of the AZ boycott) is a significant development and invite my fellow UUs to think about where it changes our considerations, and also where it does not. It may well be that the reasons to move General Assembly still outweigh reasons to stay. Certainly, feelings of safety/security for Latin@/Hispanic UUs and UUs of color is of primary consideration and the invitation does not change that. Otoh, Puente/NDLON have invited us in as partners in an extraordinary gesture of goodwill and trust. Whatever it is we decide to do, I truly hope that we do not squander that trust.

I am worried, in reading conversations on facebook and elsewhere that "sides" have hardened and distrust has grown. I felt that in my own heart the last couple of weeks, to the point where I was thinking that if our delegates vote against moving GA, I did not know whether I could remain a UU. However, I am feeling differently this week, thanks in large part to this invitation from Puente/NDLON. What I perceive as their generosity makes me feel more generous, my heart more open. And I would point out that our positions are not unanimous on this issue. In the A/PIC listserve and here on the DRUUMM site, in surveying the views expressed on facebook and the blogosphere, there are UUs of color in favor of moving GA and there are UUs of color opposed. There are Latin@/Hispanic UUs in favor of moving GA and there are Latin@/Hispanic UUs opposed. Noting this, we cannot assume that if someone reaches a different conclusion from ours that it means their commitment to diversity and justice is any less. And that goes for our white UU allies as well.

Various people, including myself, have compared this GA to 1969 with the admonition that we not repeat the mistakes of the past. The question is which mistakes might those be. Certainly, we as an association do not want to repeat the mistake of failing to listen to those most affected. But another mistake imo was letting things get to the point where bonds of trust were broken, friendships ended. If we are the people who stand on the side of love, then surely we can stand with our own even when there is strong disagreement.

12 Jun 2010 2:48 AM

Quote

Reply # 357815 on 349904

Clyde Grubbs

Peter's statement does not answer the following questions.

1. GA is a Business meeting, not a social witness event. For GA to be transformed along the lines that the Boycotting organizations have stipulated "Educational and Advocacy" we would better having a conference on Racism and "Immigration." We would cut out the internal to UU stuff, the endless reports and the sales of all sorts of artsy stuff. We would be there to witness. Why call that a GA?

2. HOW ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR SAFER in AZ than they were last week? Peter's statement does not deal with that question, does the President see as a issue?

3. The UUA "leadership" is setting us up for BAC/BAWA split by letting the delegates make the decision. Peter is not helping with vague promises of a transformed GA which he then says somebody else will need to decide and plan. Leadership that brings us together against the racist laws is what is needed from the UUA, boycott versus witness are false polarities. Both, no GA but a public witness educational event.

12 Jun 2010 4:11 AM

Quote

Reply # 357824 on 349904

Anonymous member

I am not on facebook that often so I haven't really been reading other UU's comments. I do know that we had a very interesting discussion at my church this past weekend. The consensus was that since some UUs feel that they won't be safe that having the GA in Arizona would be exclusionary.

I too wonder how changing GA as Rev. Morales suggests would change this? Does this mean that the business would be held at some other place/time so that people are not excluded? As long as the business would be conducted in Phoenix there would be a problem. If it is a social witness event then those who attend would make a choice to do so despite the possible danger in order to make a statement.

BTW how do we respond to Rev. Morales on the UUA website or is that only open to those who attend GA?

12 Jun 2010 9:49 AM

Quote

Reply # 357876 on 349904

Anonymous member

Clyde, I believe that you and others are placing a much more stringent requirement on what it means to "transform GA" than what Puente and NDLON are requiring. In fact, I know this is the case because I know the extent to which their staff were in communication with UUA staff during the drafting of the invitation. These are politically savvy organizations, with a lot of experience working with religious institutions, who made significant demands of us (rightfully so) before agreeing to the final wording of the letter. So, given that it is Puente and NDLON who are the main organizers of the boycott in the first place, if they are satisfied to invite our General Assembly in, I have to wonder why it is that others insist that additional requirements must be met to satisfy *their* boycott. From my perspective, if we have been saying that we need to listen to our allies, then that means listening even if they make decisions that we do not necessarily like. I would hope that we would trust that they know better than we do what would best serve their purposes.

I agree with you that the invitation from Puente and NDLON does not address your second concern over the safety of attendees of color. Even without the consideration of the boycott, the environment of AZ has not changed. The very real risks - both physical and emotional - have not diminished. However, given that many of us are now calling for a social witness meeting to replace GA at that time, wouldn't the same concerns still apply? Or are we thinking that the social witness meeting would be mostly attended by white allies? (sincere question, not rhetorical)

Whether this community decides to continue to recommend that GA 2012 be moved or to change our position, I will stand by either decision. But if the DRUUMM steering committee issues a second statement in response to this new development, I urgently request that the statement refrain from claiming that GA does not meet the requirements as stipulated by the organizers of the boycott. Since the organizers have invited us in, such a claim is both untrue and ungracious.

Last modified: 12 Jun 2010 9:49 AM | Anonymous member

13 Jun 2010 3:31 AM

Quote

Reply # 358178 on 357824

Anonymous member

Hi Lee,

I think you can write him directly at pmorales@uua.org.

Best, Leslie

13 Jun 2010 2:23 PM

Quote

Reply # 358273 on 349904

Anonymous member

Friends -

I have not seen Peter's statement yet, but feel compelled to inquire about how these postings work. I don't know who I am having this "conversation" with because mostly everyone is showing up as "Anonymous". Why is that so? Is it a setting on my computer?

Also, is there a way to reverse how the postings show up so that the latest shows up first and you don't have to scroll around looking for what's new?

Thanks much,

Marta

PS After I posted this, everyone's name showed up! What gives?

Last modified: 13 Jun 2010 2:23 PM | Anonymous member

13 Jun 2010 8:08 PM

Quote

Reply # 358378 on 349904

Anonymous member

Marta, I believe the names show up only when you're logged in.

Thanks, Kat, for your points. I think this is largely an issue of trust---how much do we trust Peter and other UU staff to have engaged honestly with Puente and NDLOC? Do we think they have been honest about what GA is, who will show up, and what their attitudes and levels of commitment will be?
After the original board resolution I was frustrated that so many seemed not to be trusting UUA leadership, but now I find myself guilty of the same. The invitation letter refers to "a UU convergence for human rights in AZ," which sounds to me like a social witness event, not a business meeting or a teaching event. While I am not automatically accusing these organizations of being stupid, the only language I see is much more along the lines of Michael Tino's proposal than anything remotely resembling GA.

I'm also disturbed by the fact, as several before me have pointed out, that the Latin@/Hispanic UUs who have said they would feel unsafe going to Phoenix seem to have been left out of the conversation. I've heard a lot of AZ UUs saying, "Oh, it's safe, you won't be racially profiled, trust us, we're here." Whether or not that is true---and I would like to hear it from sources who have less of a strong interest in keeping GA in Phoenix---the dismissal of these concerns is troubling and follows a pattern that most of us are all too familiar with. If we are to take seriously the idea of holding a "transformed GA" (whatever that means) in Phoenix, we must also address the concerns of our brothers and sisters rather than writing them off as paranoia. There is potential for disenfranchisement here and it cannot simply be ignored.

13 Jun 2010 8:30 PM

Quote

Reply # 358383 on 349904

Anonymous member

Sorry, one correction: upon reading the Puente/NDLOC invitation I do see the statement, "We ask that your 2012 General Assembly here in Phoenix be a convergence in cooperation with us and that together we design the best ways that UUs can witness, learn from, take action, and serve the movement here."

So it does seem that educating UUs is part of the invitation. I'd still feel better if I had more confidence that what they have in mind is something we are willing and able to deliver.

14 Jun 2010 2:20 AM

Quote

Reply # 358458 on 349904

Anonymous member

Karin - I would certainly hope that you trust that the UUA staff members who engaged with Puente and NDLON did so openly and honestly, as they are people whom you know and have expressed confidence in. It seems to me that using a phrase such as "UUA staff", while accurate, depersonalizes the people involved such that our famous UU tendency to distrust institutions kicks in and we forget that the majority of what is referred to as "the UUA" is comprised of fellow Unitarian Universalists. That of course does not mean that people need to agree with this latest proposal by Peter and staff - of course not; there are still other valid concerns - but since these are my friends and I know how sincerely they pursued this as *part of* a solution, I've been very disturbed to see them denigrated in public. It's insulting to the staff members involved and it's insulting to Puente/NDLON.

As for whether or not we are willing and able to deliver a transformed GA, I honestly do not know. What I do know is that if the majority of UUs are unwilling then we definitely will be unable.

I think a range of scenarios could play out. The worst case scenario that I can envision is that:

1) the delegates vote to pursue Peter's suggestion

2) Latin@/Hispanic UUs and UUs of color feel betrayed and boycott GA

3) our average GA-attendees are not interested in a transformed GA, preferring instead business as usual, and thus also show up in significantly reduced numbers

4) We have the lowest attended GA in years, the public witness fizzles, our partners are disappointed in us, and this becomes a dividing point amongst UUs for years to come.

Perhaps I am paranoid but I do think this is possible.

The best case scenario that I can envision is that:

1) regardless of how the delegates vote at this GA, everyone commits to trying to make the decision the best that it can be

2) Latin@/Hispanic UUs and UUs of color proactively work with the UUA staff planning for 2012 (whether it's for GA or a purely social witness event) in order to ensure that our concerns are addressed and solutions are integrated into the very structure of the event (whichever it is).

3) between now and 2012 the UUA launches an all out blitz in terms of education and social witness such that by the time we get to Phoenix the majority of UUs will have a pro-immigrant identity and will *want* to be in AZ to witness, even in late June. (We have transformed our identity before and we can do it again. As I've said elsewhere, in just the two years that I've been tracking UU responses to immigration I've seen a vast improvement. Also, we did not used to have a pro-BGLT identity and look at us now. We can do this.)

4) We have record attendance in 2012, the public witness is larger than anything we've ever done before and more UUs become interested in participating in social witness in the future, we've worked closely with Puente/NDLON and have *learned* how to take direction from our partners, UUs in general are more aware than ever of the concerns of Latin@/Hispanics and people of color, and Unitarian Universalism as a whole is transformed for the better.

Perhaps I am overly optimistic but I do think this is possible also. It really all depends on how we as UUs respond.

14 Jun 2010 12:12 PM

Quote

Reply # 358609 on 349904

Anonymous member

Kat, do you know why the business resolution has not been withdrawn from the GA agenda? I'm puzzled about the mixed messages we are getting. Are we getting one recommendation from Peter and a different one from the UUA board?

I am trying hard to find the trust that seems to be disappearing all around us and among all of us. I wish very much to have the confidence that the concerns of my UU brothers and sisters of color---particularly those who are Latin@/Hispanic---are being addressed, but the (admittedly scant) evidence is that they are not. I believe we need to be accountable to our allies in Arizona like Puente/NDLOC, and I believe we also need to be accountable to those of us who would be disenfranchised if we cannot guarantee their safety. So far I have no evidence of any attention paid to the latter.

If we vote to keep GA in Phoenix, I will attend if I feel confident that the best-case scenario you envision has a chance of happening. Given the track record of our movement, however, my prediction is that the work of transforming GA would fall disproportionately into the hands of our UUs of color and our Puente/NDLOC allies, and I do not want to be put into the position, for the millionth time, of educating my fellow white UUs. Much will depend on the quality of the discussion and the degree of commitment displayed by those who favor this option.

I think your comparison to the Black Empowerment controversy is apt. Regardless of whether those who fear for their safety are "justified" in doing so (something I cringe to imagine can be determined by anyone else), there are issues of loyalty involved that go far beyond this particular issue, toward our future as a movement of inclusion.

Last modified: 14 Jun 2010 12:12 PM | Anonymous member