Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:49:44 -0700
> No, that's too broad. The AFSC may oppose *violent* efforts
> to oppose such movements, but they have their own methods
> they follow, whether you think they're effective or not.
Yes, it was a bit broad. I was trying to illustrate the problem in
mission statements. I came up with Cambodia, but didn't want to imply
that the AFSC would support the horror there -- obviously they would
I expect any Quaker organization to be opposed to any war. I don't
think that is the right position, but I honor the Quakers for it. I
reserve most of my fire for people who opposed the Vietnam War because
they wanted the communist forces to win. The silence of such people on
the tragedies that followed is telling, and most of them seem to have
been very silent or have edited what they believed at the time when they
talk about it.
There are many good, valid reasons to have opposed our involvement in
Vietnam. The Quakers had good reasons.
Finally, I think 'Ghandi like non-violence' requires you to pick your
enemies very carefully. Ghandi was opposing the English, not Stalin. I
think that makes a big difference. So yes, I think the effectiveness of
some methods depends upon your opposition.
> Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is there. Are you saying
> AFSC is less non-violent than the Quakers? Based on what,
> their opposition to the Vietnam War?? I'm confused.
> > http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0132/news-shapiro.shtml
> This week's issue! How timely :-) An interesting article, thanks.
My sole real source was the story above. I had never heard of them
before. Much of what I said can be traced in the article to an author
of a book on the AFSC (and other books on the Quakers). I haven't read
that book, or anything else by that author.
The other thing that is coloring my view is recent events in Seattle,
and the quotes from the head of the NW AFSC. But I understand that this
may not be representative of all of the local group, or of the national
group. I just don't know.