[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Activism and Disinterest Revisited (r)



Subject: Re: Activism and Disinterest Revisited

>From: brelief@xxxxxxx (Ken and Visakha Kawasaki)
>Matthew Sinclair - Day (msinclai@xxxxxxxxxx), you amaze us!
>
>Mr. Morton "addressed the substance of Mr. Tozzi" with wit,
>kindliness, and poetry.  It was a lovely, intelligent response, and
>we enjoyed it heartily.
>
>How astonishing that you saw it as an attack, an act of violence.
>We're glad for you that you've been so shielded from violence
>that you could so mistake a paean to activism as to call it a
>violent attack.
>
>Mr. Morton, if you do not understand "how violence in Burma
>is different from the violence in your attack against Mr. Tozzi"
>we urge you to examine some Karen Human Rights Group
>reports and photos or view the recent Barefaced Production,
>"Life on the Line."
>
>All these pseudo - sweetness and light attempts to stifle
>discussion, disagreement, opinions, ideas, perspectives, values,
>and points of view are dangerous and rabidly anti-democratic.
>
>Anytime John Morton wants to speak up and express himself,
>that isn't violence, it is his right.
>

Ken and Visakha Kawasaki,

Please do not confuse the issues at hand. At no time have I said or implied
that Mr. Morton should not or could not speak up and express himself. Such
a suggestion is neither for me to make nor, it is obvious, one I advocated.
What I did say, however, was that Mr. Morton's message did not address the
substance of Mr. Tozzi's question and, instead, attacked the substance of
Mr. Tozzi's character. I think if you were to re-read their messages you
would find that I'm correct on this point. Mr. Morton's response and now
your's are classic examples of a failure in communication between two
people. At no time did Mr. Tozzi declare that the activists working for
change in Burma had less than sincere motives and interests. What Mr. Tozzi
did do, however, was ASK if this were the case. And I can not think of
anything more democratic and reasonable than a person who addresses an
issue of interest and concern by asking a question. By doing so, the person
has allowed for another person or persons to voice their opinion and
reasons. Mr. Morton's response, on the other hand, did not address the
question but instead attacked the person asking the question. This is an
important distinction and problem, and I'm a bit disturbed that you two do
not recognize the difference, the difference between saying "Damn it!" and
"Damn you!"

Yes, it is true, I have never been to Burma (I wasn't allowed in) and have
never been subject to torture or physical violence of the type and
intensity leveled against people in Burma. Your sarcasm aside, I hope you
ARE glad I have been shielded from the violence in this world. However,
when and where I have witnessed or been a receiver of violence is really
none of your business, and is in fact not germane to the discussion at
hand; frankly, what you said was in quite poor taste. I have read the
reports and testimonies of torture, rape and despair, that the people of
Burma inflict upon each other daily. You have read these testimonies also.
But like any conflict, the conflict in Burma is ultimately a conflict of
words and ideas. It can only be truly resolved through discussion and
communication, in an atmosphere where two sides may come together not to
attack each other's integrity but to voice their positions and concerns in
a frank, intelligent and intellectual way. Then and only then will these
two sides understand each other and be able to negotiate a common ground
based not on "positions," but on principles. I suspect Aung San Suu Kyi
understands this quite well. To say that all of this is high-blown
intellectual mumbo-jumbo, divorced from reality and the day-to-day concerns
on the ground in Burma or Thailand or elsewhere, is really not very
intelligent and calls into question what some people actually mean by peace
and reconciliation. To say it in the way Mr. Morton did, is downright ugly
and violent. That was my point then and that is my point now.

Call them what ever you want---"poetry," "wit," or even "beauty"---Mr.
Morton's words were fighting words, not designed to focus us on the
atrocities in Burma but actually chosen to belittle and destroy an
individual who dared to ask a question. This newsgroup has the ability to
bring people together not just to organize their energy for activism, but
also to foster a meeting of minds. Only if the discussion herein is
conducted in a thoughtful, reasonable and rational way, with good-faith
given to all, can we assure ourselves that our motivations are just and
clear. Once strident language and personal attacks are accepted as
reasonable and normal will this newsgroup lose its integrity and will some
choose to remain silent. When this happens, people  will not have to ask if
we Burma watchers and advocates have other interests than Burma and her
problems in mind. I spoke up in defense of Mr.Tozzi on a matter of
principle, that I would confront violence whenever I can. I spoke up
because I am not afraid. Please do not try to make me feel otherwise.

--MSD