recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : quakers   20

Germantown Friends' protest against slavery 1688. [Facsimile]. | Library of Congress
[via this thread:
https://twitter.com/zunguzungu/status/1163480162874249218

“Quakers were active abolitionists in Pennsylvania when a lot of the “founders” weren’t born yet
one of these days i will write about how nearly every “modern” criticism of the founders on race and slavery was levied against them at the time by contemporaries on both sides of the atlantic
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1163425126685249537

"Lay announced in a booming voice that God Almighty respects all peoples equally, rich and poor, men and women, white and black alike. He said that slave keeping was the greatest sin in the world and asked, How can a people who profess the golden rule keep slaves?"

"He then threw off his great coat, revealing the military garb, the book and the blade." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/quaker-comet-greatest-abolitionist-never-heard-180964401/

"He pulled out the sword, raised the book above his head, and plunged the sword through it. People gasped as the red liquid gushed down his arm; women swooned. To the shock of all, he spattered “blood” on the slave keepers."

John Woolman in 1757, when Alexander Hamilton was an infant:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6538/

John Woolman: "There is great odds in regard to us on what principles we act"

(sunglasses descend from ceiling)

In 1688: "There is a saying, that we shall doe to all men like as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike?"
https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.14000200/?st=text

(It’s generally known that the new nation’s capital was built in Virginia/Maryland to keep the slave states happy. But one reason they moved it AWAY FROM PHILADELPHIA is that the Quakers kept making local laws to harass slaveholders, which many of the founders were. )

What those Quakers show us is that it was never ignorance or an inability to think otherwise that made pro-slavery arguments persuasive. There was never a time when slavery was unquestioned. The founders chose a side in an argument.

(I’m sure it’s complicated, and don’t know nearly enough, but one reason Quakers turned against slavery WAY earlier than basically all other white people has to be that their meetings were non-hierarchical. You could just stand up and say "you know what? slavery is fucked up")"]
quakers  slavery  abolitionists  us  1688  history 
5 days ago by robertogreco
A Quaker Abolitionist Travels Through Maryland and Virginia: The Journal of John Woolman, 1757
“In both Britain and the United States, Quakers were among the first to denounce slavery in the 18th century. This was due to the efforts of Quaker abolitionist leaders such as John Woolman. Born in New Jersey in 1720, Woolman was a tailor and shopkeeper. Continual encounters with slavery in his own neighborhood—notably an incident in which his employer asked him to write out a bill of sale for a slave—convinced him that he could not, in good conscience, continue to have anything more to do with slavery. In 1756, the year he began his journal, he gave up most of his business to devote himself to anti-slavery. This selection from Woolman’s journal, published in 1774 after his death, records a trip in May 1757, through Maryland and Virginia, to spread his anti-slavery message among fellow Quakers.”

[via this thread:
https://twitter.com/zunguzungu/status/1163480162874249218

“Quakers were active abolitionists in Pennsylvania when a lot of the “founders” weren’t born yet
one of these days i will write about how nearly every “modern” criticism of the founders on race and slavery was levied against them at the time by contemporaries on both sides of the atlantic
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1163425126685249537

"Lay announced in a booming voice that God Almighty respects all peoples equally, rich and poor, men and women, white and black alike. He said that slave keeping was the greatest sin in the world and asked, How can a people who profess the golden rule keep slaves?"

"He then threw off his great coat, revealing the military garb, the book and the blade." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/quaker-comet-greatest-abolitionist-never-heard-180964401/

"He pulled out the sword, raised the book above his head, and plunged the sword through it. People gasped as the red liquid gushed down his arm; women swooned. To the shock of all, he spattered “blood” on the slave keepers."

John Woolman in 1757, when Alexander Hamilton was an infant:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6538/

John Woolman: "There is great odds in regard to us on what principles we act"

(sunglasses descend from ceiling)

In 1688: "There is a saying, that we shall doe to all men like as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike?"
https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.14000200/?st=text

(It’s generally known that the new nation’s capital was built in Virginia/Maryland to keep the slave states happy. But one reason they moved it AWAY FROM PHILADELPHIA is that the Quakers kept making local laws to harass slaveholders, which many of the founders were. )

What those Quakers show us is that it was never ignorance or an inability to think otherwise that made pro-slavery arguments persuasive. There was never a time when slavery was unquestioned. The founders chose a side in an argument.

(I’m sure it’s complicated, and don’t know nearly enough, but one reason Quakers turned against slavery WAY earlier than basically all other white people has to be that their meetings were non-hierarchical. You could just stand up and say "you know what? slavery is fucked up")"]
abolitionism  johnwoolman  slavery  us  history  quakers 
5 days ago by robertogreco
The "Quaker Comet" Was the Greatest Abolitionist You've Never Heard Of | History | Smithsonian
“Overlooked by historians, Benjamin Lay was one of the nation’s first radicals to argue for an end to slavery”

[via this thread:
https://twitter.com/zunguzungu/status/1163480162874249218

“Quakers were active abolitionists in Pennsylvania when a lot of the “founders” weren’t born yet
one of these days i will write about how nearly every “modern” criticism of the founders on race and slavery was levied against them at the time by contemporaries on both sides of the atlantic
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1163425126685249537

"Lay announced in a booming voice that God Almighty respects all peoples equally, rich and poor, men and women, white and black alike. He said that slave keeping was the greatest sin in the world and asked, How can a people who profess the golden rule keep slaves?"

"He then threw off his great coat, revealing the military garb, the book and the blade." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/quaker-comet-greatest-abolitionist-never-heard-180964401/

"He pulled out the sword, raised the book above his head, and plunged the sword through it. People gasped as the red liquid gushed down his arm; women swooned. To the shock of all, he spattered “blood” on the slave keepers."

John Woolman in 1757, when Alexander Hamilton was an infant:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6538/

John Woolman: "There is great odds in regard to us on what principles we act"

(sunglasses descend from ceiling)

In 1688: "There is a saying, that we shall doe to all men like as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike?"
https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.14000200/?st=text

(It’s generally known that the new nation’s capital was built in Virginia/Maryland to keep the slave states happy. But one reason they moved it AWAY FROM PHILADELPHIA is that the Quakers kept making local laws to harass slaveholders, which many of the founders were. )

What those Quakers show us is that it was never ignorance or an inability to think otherwise that made pro-slavery arguments persuasive. There was never a time when slavery was unquestioned. The founders chose a side in an argument.

(I’m sure it’s complicated, and don’t know nearly enough, but one reason Quakers turned against slavery WAY earlier than basically all other white people has to be that their meetings were non-hierarchical. You could just stand up and say "you know what? slavery is fucked up")"]
benjaminlay  abolitionism  us  history  slavery  2017  1738  quakers  pennsylvania  antislavery 
5 days ago by robertogreco
'An oasis of calm': Quakers broadcast 30 minutes of silence | Media | The Guardian
"It’s not the most obvious subject for a podcast, but a group of young Quakers in Nottingham have recorded their 30-minute silent meeting so as to share their “oasis of calm” with the world.

In an episode of the monthly Young Quaker Podcast, called the Silence Special, you can hear a clock ticking, pages being turned and the rain falling, as the group meets and sits in silence at the Friend’s Meeting House in Nottingham.

Quakerism was founded in the 17th century by the dissenter George Fox during the years of Puritan England. The group’s meetings are characterised by silence, which is occasionally broken when someone present feels the urge to speak, say a prayer or offer a reading.

The idea for the silent podcast first came from Tim Gee, a Quaker living in London, who was inspired by the BBC’s season of “slow” radio, which treated audiences to – among other things – the sounds of birds singing, mountain climbing and monks chatting.

Gee said he had wanted to “share a small oasis of calm, and a way to provide a moment of stillness, for people on the move”.

Jessica Hubbard-Bailey, 25, from the Nottingham Young Quakers, who recorded the podcast, said they had jumped at the opportunity to broadcast something “immersive and unusual”. She added: “We have very different ways of worship to most people of faith and we thought this was a really unique opportunity to give people a little slice of what the Quakers do. Also, we are really good at being quiet because we’ve made a practice of it and I think that is of value. These days everyone is so busy, everyone is working all the time, so it’s really valuable to have the opportunity to sit down once a week and just be quiet and listen.”

Hubbard-Bailey, who was brought up as an atheist but became attracted to Quakerism for its egalitarian principles, said that the podcast had had a good reception, with nearly 400 uses of it.

“I think that makes it the biggest Quaker meeting this year technically,” she said. “I’ve had one couple say that they’ve listened to the silence episode and are going to go to a Quaker meeting for the first time this Sunday. We’ve also had some people saying ‘oh, I’m not sure about this, seems like a bit of a waste of time’. But I think that’s really indicative of how we as a society view silence and stillness.”"
quakers  silence  sound  2018  via:subtopes  religion  georgefox  slow  slowradio  radio  atheism 
april 2018 by robertogreco
Testimony of simplicity - Wikipedia
"The testimony of simplicity is a shorthand description of the actions generally taken by members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) to testify or bear witness to their beliefs that a person ought to live a simple life in order to focus on what is most important and ignore or play down what is least important.[1]

Friends believe that a person’s spiritual life and character are more important than the quantity of goods he possesses or his monetary worth. Friends also believe that one should use one’s resources, including money and time, deliberately in ways that are most likely to make life truly better for oneself and others. The word testimony describes the way that Friends testify or bear witness to their beliefs in their everyday life. A testimony is therefore not a belief, but is committed action arising out of Friends' religious experience. Testimony to simplicity includes the practice among Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends) of being more concerned with one’s inner condition than one’s outward appearance and with other people more than oneself."
quakers  praxis  simplicity  everyday  actions  voluntarysimplicity  simpleliving 
march 2018 by robertogreco
Silence is a space for something new to happen
The Quakers: “Do not speak unless you can improve upon the silence.”

Garry Shandling: “The world is too noisy and distracted to probably ultimately survive. Everyone needs to shut the fuck up. The answers are in the silence. Monks set themselves on fire to protest and to make this point. Just consider it.”

Depeche Mode: “Words like violence / break the silence…”

Morris Berman: “It takes silence and slow time to be creative, and those things are threatening to most Americans, because they understand on some level that that’s what health is about, and that they don’t have it.”

Ursula Franklin: “Silence is not only the space in which there’s no sound, but there’s no program. Nothing is there so that whatever is essentially unprogrammable can happen. How does anything new happen? In a world where everything is scheduled, everything is listed, everything is programmed, the first thing one needs is space… You have to be open. It doesn’t mean something enormous will happen, but nothing can happen until you clear that space… Nobody has time to even receive anything that is actually new, including their own thoughts.”

Bill Callahan: “When you’re starting a song the only thing you have is silence and silence is pretty damn sweet. Once you start making some sound, it better be good because you’re ruining the silence that makes you feel good and relaxed. I feel like you can only make a sound if it’s better than silence… [I’m] very conscious of the power of nothing, the power of nothing being there. You’ll notice it’s still about the best thing anyone playing with me on a record can do is just stop playing. Because you got this instrument in your hand and it’s really fun to make the noise with it, but it means so much more when you’re not playing it.”

John Cage: “[O]ne day I got into [a cab] and the driver began talking a blue streak, accusing absolutely everyone of being wrong. You know he was full of irritation about everything, and I simply remained quiet. I did not answer his questions, I did not enter into a conversation, and very shortly the driver began changing his ideas and simply through my being silent he began, before I got out of the car, saying rather nice things about the world around him.”

Austin Chapman, a man born deaf who, through hearing aids, was able to hear again: “Silence is still my favorite sound. When I turn my aids off my thoughts become more clear and it’s absolutely peaceful. I hope that one day hearing people get the opportunity to experience utter silence.”
silence  quakers  garryshandling  depechemode  morrisberman  ursulafranklin  billcallahan  johncage  austinchapman  austinkleon  quiet 
july 2017 by robertogreco
Berlin Biennale | All Problems Can Be Illuminated; Not All Problems Can Be Solved
"“There is no technology for justice. There is only justice.”12 Ursula Franklin answered when I asked her in December 2015, what to do. I reached out because I wanted her to tell me how to act on the perspectives she brings to the traditional story of progress. As someone building internet technologies, working within this received wisdom, I wanted a recipe, something I could share with others (with you!) and throw my body into.

She was warm and generous and incredibly insightful, and she gave me no smooth answers, no simple way.

Central to our conversation was my worry about the massive surveillance capacities enabled by internet technologies and the way in which public assent to surveillance is fueled by the racism and militarism of the now eternal “War on Terror.” What could we do to combat this narrative? What could we do to change the underlying technologies such that they respect human agency and privacy?

Franklin agreed. This is a grave problem. But not a “technological” problem:

“Whether it’s heathens, witches, women, communists, whoever, the institution of an enemy as a political tool is inappropriate. The only solution is an insistence on a civilized democratic society. A civilized democratic society combats this and the wish of an authority to collect personal information on citizens and their activities and loyalties. Whether it’s done by spying, by bribing children, by workplace monitoring, by confession in the confession box of the church—the collection is the issue. The means—the technology—is secondary. The problem is a problem of authoritarian power. And at the root of this problem is the issue of justice, and justice is political.”

While justice can be understood, can be felt, there is no template to follow, or checklist to work through for ensuring a just outcome. The requirements are humility, a respect for context, and a willingness to listen to the most marginalized voices. Let these define the basic requirements of whatever you do. You must “put yourself in the position of the most vulnerable, in a way that achieves a visceral gut feeling of empathy and perspective—that’s the only way to see what justice is.”

Understanding justice, honoring those most vulnerable and including them as authors of any plan that impacts them, is a necessary starting place. But the problems associated with our current technologies won’t be solved by tweaking gears or redesigning mechanisms. A roadmap that centers on justice is only the first step. “For a very long time gadgets and machinery have been anti-people. If one wants to get away from the anti-people component, then you don’t argue technology as much as you argue capitalism.” Even with a view of what justice would look like and could be, attempts at radical change will, of course, be repulsed by powerful actors who benefit richly from the unjust status quo. Political change must be a part of the equation.

This isn’t a frenzied call for revolution. The bigger the scale, the bigger the vision for just change, the more difficult it will be to “get it through” a system in which power is aligned against justice (and, of course, the more difficult it will be to truly understand this vision’s vast impact on vulnerable populations and thus ensure it really supports justice.) Not that working to build practices and plans isn’t worthwhile—it is incredibly worthwhile. But you’re unlikely to have much real impact if you start with a grand announcement. “To proceed in a hostile world,” Franklin suggests, “call it an experiment. Admit that you don’t know how to do it, but ask for space and peace and respect. Then try your experiment, quietly.” In conditions not conducive to success, situate yourself out of the spotlight and proceed subtly, humbly, and be willing to downplay expectations while new forms incubate.

“My favorite word is an old Quaker term, ‘scrupling,’ used as an activity,” Franklin begins, addressing how to approach the vastness of the political and social problems we were discussing. “It comes out of the anti-slavery movement, originally. People would get together to ‘scruple,’ that is, discuss and debate a common problem, something they had scruples about—say, justice—for which they did not have a solution. This is scrupling, and this is something you and your friends can do.”

Gather and talk. Empathize and listen. Don’t chase the spotlight, and accept that some problems are big, and difficult, and that what you’re good at may not fix them. These are not the ways of charismatic executives and flash-bang inventors. These are not instructions for entrepreneurial success. These won’t produce bigger faster newer ways of doing things.

Her parting words were meant to comfort me. “For your own sanity, you have to remember that not all problems can be solved. Not all problems can be solved, but all problems can be illuminated. If the eggs are scrambled, they’re scrambled. You can’t unscramble them. All you can possibly do is cook them and share them with somebody.”"
ursulafranklin  justice  technology  meredithmeredith  2016  efficiency  compliance  listening  empathy  progress  racism  militarism  surveillance  waronterror  democracy  society  humility  inclusivity  inclusion  vulnerability  radicalchange  power  statusquo  politics  scrupling  conversation  problemsolving  jacquesellul  capitalism  consumerism  innovation  quakers  systems  interrelationships  systemsthinking  complexity  culture  materials  art  mindset  organization  procedures  symbols  orthodoxy  luddism  occupywallstreet  ows  resistance  disruption  speed  humanism  science  scientism  legibility  elitism  experts  authority  privilege  experience  civilization  authoritarianism  socialjustice  revolution  peace  spotlight  hardproblems  success 
july 2016 by robertogreco
Michael Winter, Ursula Franklin - Home | The Next Chapter with Shelagh Rogers | CBC Radio
"The news anchor Tom Brokaw coined the term "the greatest generation" to describe the Americans who grew up during the Depression and sustained the ravages of the Second World War. Shelagh thought of that description after she read a book of speeches by the acclaimed scientist, pacifist, and feminist Ursula Franklin.

Ursula Franklin isn't an American but she is a member of that great generation of people shaped personally by the War - very personally in her case.  

She was born in Germany and spent the war in a forced labour camp. Her parents were both in concentration camps.. Miraculously, all three survived and came to Canada. 

Ursula Franklin has spent her life in this country devoted, as she says, to "being useful". She's put her intelligence, discernment, and humanity to many uses. She's a physicist who has made important discoveries and advancements in science, a Quaker who has advocated tirelessly in the service of peace, and a ground breaking feminist.
 
Ursula Franklin Speaks is a collection of speeches and interviews from 1986 to 2012. She collaborated on it with her friend and University of Toronto colleague Sarah Jane Freeman. 

We hope you enjoy this extended version of Shelagh's conversation with Dr. Ursula Franklin."
ursulafranklin  2015  interviews  feminism  quakers  shelaghrogers  canada  collectivism  citizenship  humanism  pacifism  clarity  patriarchy  capitalism  privatization  socialism  scrupling  scruples  hope  hopelessness  optimism  change  civics  activism  discourse  problemsolving  townmeetings  commongood  conversation 
march 2015 by robertogreco
Letter to the community | the Purple Thistle Centre
"Refusing to Jump the Shark, OR: the Thistle was never meant to be an institution.

dear friends, community and supporters,

As many of you may have heard, the Thistle has hit some hard funding cuts this past year. It’s been pretty rough and it has required an administrative dance-to-end-all-dances just to keep us afloat. It hasn’t been all bad though; we’ve managed to do some cool stuff anyhow, like Solidarity Camp during the teachers strike, an amazing public art show at Heartwood Cafe and another run of FARMcamp (to name just a few). But energy and funding at the Thistle has been dwindling, and it means that we are going to close the space at the end of April.

Before we all jump to the front lines and try and save the space, please have a read about how this transition and change isn’t about saving the Thistle space, but about celebrating the Thistle and the ongoing work of youth liberation, friendship, and community.

This is a letter to say thanks to a lot of folks and hey, let’s keep in touch!

The Thistle has been around for 14 and half years, and that’s something to be really proud of. Not one person is the Thistle, so be sure to talk to folks who have been involved with the project, their individual or collective stories will be worth hearing!

The Thistle was never meant to be an institution, but rather a space where folks could come together meet and dream about doing something collaboratively and then do it! And overall, that’s what has happened.

Youth liberation is at the Thistle’s core- an alternative to school. A place to reimagine how young folks can organize and co-create. What blossomed from almost 15 years in this environment, are solid friendships and a community that lives, and will survive, outside the walls of the centre.

A bunch of us at the Thistle think we have had an impact on the discourse of youth liberation and youth engagement in their communities and we feel pretty great about that, too. But more than all of that, what has happened at the Thistle over the almost 15 years has been about the creation of solid friendships and community.

At the Thistle we learn to trust — to trust that kids and youth have the capacity to solve their own problems and to author their own lives, and to trust ourselves as adults and mentors — to learn to work together in a way that lives so comfortably outside institutions. So right now, we also need to trust that this is the time to end this experiment, and that new projects will flourish. The signs are lining up (low participation, funding issues, slowing of momentum), it’s time to be responsive to that and trust ourselves.

A BIT MORE ABOUT WHY WE ARE CLOSING:
Over the past year and half, we have witnessed a wellspring of youth projects starting up: from youth-run collectives, to cooperatives and art projects and it’s been inspiring to see. At the same time, and partly as a result of this, we have seen the general involvement at the Thistle really lessen, which really makes a lot of sense to us. There are less youth at drop-ins, fewer active Thistle pods, and folks are feeling pulled among all kinds of rad projects. In other words, there’s lots going on, and a bunch of it isn’t happening at the Thistle.

This has shown us that perhaps we are no longer needed in the way we were in the past, and have pretty much done our time — after all, everything does end! And to be honest, we wish more places would end when it’s time — but unfortunately we live in a system that values longevity over thriving; and that aint us. Our society puts us in competition with other rad, youth-run projects for grants and funding, and we want to celebrate those other projects by closing up and supporting these rad new initiatives. Youth projects are still flourishing, and doing a bunch of the things that the Thistle has done well in the past. And some of the new initiatives may very well come out of the Thistle and some of the current collective…

We could also “jump the shark” by turning the Thistle into an institution, or partnering with a few institutions to make us stay open. In doing so, we could have enough money to keep it going, at least for a while, but we think that’s not right either and that doing that would ultimately undermine the core of what the Thistle was/is: a space run by youth.

To borrow on a Quakers ethos, sometimes you gotta just “lay it down.” That is, to get out of the way so other, more timely projects can sprout. We are excited to see what will grow in the Thistle’s place when the space closes its doors — and there are a bunch of us who are excited to be part of those conversations!

THE FACTS:
The space is closing April 30th, but a few of the pods will still be going: Lovable, Thistle Institute and one of the the garden projects. Carla Bergman, with the support of Arts In Action will still be wearing an administrator hat to support youth run projects like DIT (Daughters in Tandem) and ArtQuake, to gain funding and connect to community and so on.

AND NOW FOR SOME BIG THANKS!
A tremendously big thank you to Morley Faber, who put up with us in the Mergartroid building for all these years — we sincerely couldn’t have done half of what we accomplished without his support and guidance. Thank you to Arts In Action, and especially, Selena Couture, Verity Rolfe and Claudine Pommier, for always being open to our far-fetched ideas and for signing a lot of paperwork! And of course, thank you to the funders who also let us have a lot of autonomy along the way and supported youth liberation– thank you all!

But mostly, we want say thank you to all the youth who trusted this project and jumped in with all your fierce passions and radical dreams– you all should feel incredibly proud! There are too many to name, but you are all remembered! And a special thank you to all the adults who came in and hung out, offered mentorship, learned more than they gave and were anchors.

Lastly, for a bunch of us we really got to send the biggest shout out and say the biggest thank you to that first crew of youth: Gen, Cole, Jesse, Keith, Leni, Dan, Maggie, and Lauriel, and of course thank you Matt Hern, for having the vision, the imagination and the courage to create the Thistle.

much gratitude to you all.

KEEP IN TOUCH:
It’s time to move on, but we will be open for a couple more months and there will be lots to do! so come hang out, make some art, help pack and clean the place! And, before we close the doors to that space, let’s celebrate almost 15 years of a project that created a lot of cool things, most of all community! We will be in touch soon about the party.

FINAL WORDS:
The Thistle project was created by a group of friends, and it’ll be amazing to see what a new group of friends will create in its place. And so, the space may close, but the relationships and the small projects that grew out of the Thistle project will go on. Let’s not have the walls of a space say who we are and let’s not fall into that institutional trap –almost everyone who has been involved in the project is still around; we have us and all the connections we’ve made, all the projects that have blossomed and all the seeds we’ve collectively planted. And that’s a lot.

see you all in the streets and in our homes.

in friendship and liberation,

The Thistle Community

co-signers:

alex, aly, Marly, Savanna, Sylvia, LeyAnn, Niko, Aliza, Durga, Maneo, Manisha, Corin, Zach, Dani and carla"
purplethistle  2015  ephemerality  unschooling  deschooling  longevity  ephemeral  institutions  projects  lcproject  openstudioproject  closing  youth  thriving  success  change  quakers  carlabergman  matthern 
january 2015 by robertogreco
Parker Palmer and Courtney Martin — The Inner Life of Rebellion | On Being
"The history of rebellion is rife with excess and burnout. But new generations have a distinctive commitment to be reflective and activist at once, to be in service as much as in charge, and to learn from history while bringing very new realities into being. Journalist and entrepreneur Courtney Martin and Quaker wise man Parker Palmer come together for a cross-generational conversation about the inner work of sustainable, resilient social change."

[Also here: https://soundcloud.com/onbeing/parker-palmer-and-courtney-martin-the-inner-life-of-rebellion

and in clips

“Parker Palmer and Courtney Martin — Learning in Public”
https://soundcloud.com/onbeing/parker-palmer-and-courtney

“Courtney Martin — A New Relationship with Rebellion”
https://soundcloud.com/onbeing/courtney-martin-a-new

“Parker Palmer — Holding the Paradox of Chutzpah and Humility”
https://soundcloud.com/onbeing/parker-palmer-holding-the-paradox-of-chutzpah-and-humility ]
parkerpalmer  courtneymartin  comfort  persistence  rebellion  rebels  humility  burnout  discomfort  2015  depression  sustainability  resilience  mentalhealth  socialchange  savingtheworld  generations  agesegregation  intergenerational  interconnectedness  activism  reflection  service  idealism  privilege  success  efficiency  emotions  learning  howwelearn  piaget  listening  pause  ethics  busyness  resistance  soul  identity  maryoliver  attentiveness  attention  quakers  clinicaldepression  learninginpublic  living  love  flipflopping  mindchanging  malcolmx  victoriasafford  hope  jeanpiaget  onbeing  mindchanges  interconnected  interconnectivity 
january 2015 by robertogreco
“We want democracy, but we don’t have the theory or skill to do it” | Grist
"A. People from older generations tried to step in and say, “Here’s what’s going to happen. A General Assembly can’t be that open because people are going to be walking in just off the streets. Here are some horizontal structures that you can use to limit the inevitable chaos.”

And then they were denounced. There was so much idealism. I actually just wrote this big prospectus for my next film, and the working title is, “What is Democracy?” I don’t know if it will talk about Occupy. But it will talk about how we want democracy, but we don’t have the political theory or skill to do it. People are so disappointed in the existing system that they want something more pure, something totally open and equal. And then of course it fails.

Like “consensus.” It actually has its origins in Quaker meetings. In that context it makes sense, because at a Quaker meeting you quiet yourself. And when you’re calm, then the spirit moves you. But if you’re a bunch of activists in a park, you don’t necessarily agree if there is a God up there, or if there’s a metaphysical spirit that you’re going to get in touch with. There’s something funny about how that technique has been adopted.

We take these tools and we don’t know where they come from. I want to say, “Where did we get these ideas? And are they helping us? Or are we going to just keep on having these beautiful moments that totally collapse under the weight of our structureless democracy?”"

Q. The tyranny of structurelessness.

A. Yeah. I want to make the movie that the kids in college can see and have better tools for their social movements. Other than “Let’s have a general assembly! The world is so corrupt that we can only be pure in opposition to it.” I think we need a more complicated understanding of political theory than that.



Q. When you think about democracy — are there certain groups you know that really have it? You mentioned the students in Montreal.

A. I did a piece for the Baffler about Chicago’s New Era Windows Cooperative. It’s the only worker-owned factory in the United States. In the piece I say that part of the problem of Occupy Wall Street was that it wanted to be a democracy but it didn’t have any resources. One of the tricks if you want a democracy is that something has to be at stake — you need an incentive to stick together.

You can’t just have a democracy of people debating abstract principles in a park. Because then you’re just going to fight. This group in Chicago — they wanted to have a job that gave them time to see their families. They put themselves in danger to get that. They built a factory when they could have been out there looking for other jobs. But do they give those rights that they fought for to a new hire who just comes walking in off the street? That’s what a democracy is about — it’s about who has rights. Who has responsibilities. How do we share resources?

This is the tricky thing about democracy: It’s both an ideal and an actuality. So when we say “democracy,” we also have to say what me mean by it. It’s an ideal, and it’s also the current corrupt system of elections and representations that we have.

In fact, the Founding Fathers went out of their way to make sure the president wasn’t directly elected and made sure to call it a republic and not a democracy. This tension between the ideal and the actual is always going to be there."
astrataylor  democracy  history  ows  occupywallstreet  2014  hierarchy  politics  us  horizontality  quakers  anarchism  anarchy  organizing  socialmovements  activism  protest  change  participatory  interviews  structurelessness 
december 2014 by robertogreco
Don't Just Sit There, Do Something | Tricycle
“Ever since Western converts began adopting Buddhist traditions, their community has sought a balance between the quest for personal peace and tranquility and the sense of social engagement that has sometimes expressed itself, most recently on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, with the well-worn activists’ phrase No justice, no peace.

That seemingly irreconcilable conflict made itself felt when several generations of Buddhists came together for the 2014 National Gathering of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship (or “BPF”). That noteworthy group, now 36 years old, congregated during Labor Day weekend at the East Bay Meditation Center, housed in a low-slung, two-story building in Oakland, California’s economically revitalized heart. At the gathering, the fellowship’s newest, post-Occupy incarnation seemed to carry a message for its more solitary, meditation-oriented elders: Don’t just sit there, do something.

The relatively small size of the event, as well as its modest setting, stood in sharp contrast to that of well-attended, corporate-funded mindfulness conferences such as Wisdom 2.0. In a private conversation the first evening of the gathering, I told Thai Buddhist activist Sulak Sivaraksa (addressed “Ajahn [teacher] Sulak”) of my own written criticism of that conference, and of the “engaged Buddhist” teachers who privately thanked me for “saying what needed to be said” but refused to support that position publicly.

“If they can’t say publicly what they feel privately,” said Ajahn Sulak, “we call that ‘being a hypocrite.’ I’ve experienced that myself, many times. Teachers or abbots tell me ‘I agree with you, but I can’t say so publicly.’ That means they have economic interests that prevent them from speaking up. Even Thich Nhat Hanh, who is a friend and whom I consider a teacher, is reluctant to speak as freely as he did before he ran such a large institution.” A good spiritual friend (kalyana mitta), Ajahn Sulak continued, speaks the truth: “That’s why I admire the American Quakers. They tell the truth, no matter what the consequences.”

Western Buddhists have at times been reluctant to speak truth to power. Some Buddhist organizations and entrepreneurs have, instead, unabashedly cozied up to it, hoping some prestige would rub off on them. That practice was perhaps best exemplified by an admiring (some might say “fawning”) interview of Paul Kagame, Rwanda’s “Darling Tyrant,” at the 2014 Wisdom 2.0 conference. Kagame's practice of mindfulness was apparently so inspiring that it allowed his audience to ignore his administration’s involvement in, according to the Spanish government, “crimes of genocide, human rights abuses, and terrorism,” as well as his government’s suspected involvement in the murders of Rwandan dissidents and threats to the journalists who reported them.

Corporate-sponsored “mindfulness” seems to be a growth industry. The Quaker “Religious Society of Friends,” in contrast and as a result of its practices, has “never become large . . . or powerful,” Ajahn Sulak told me. “But they tell the truth. All Buddhists should learn from the Quakers.”

The following morning’s meditation was followed by a plenary session on the “Future of Engaged Buddhism,” with perspectives from “five veteran BPFers”: Zenju Earthlyn Manuel, Susan Moon, Mushim Patricia Ikeda, Martha Boesing, and Donald Rothberg. For the morning breakout session I chose Rothberg’s workshop on “Keeping Cool in the Fire: Becoming More Skillful with Inner and Outer Conflicts.” Drawing extensively on the work of Norwegian conflict resolution expert Johan Galtung, Rothberg may have been unaware how quickly he was to be drawn into a conflict of his own.

The primary goal of Rothberg’s presentation, which included graphic representations and other practical tools, was to offer guidance on how to bring two sides of a conflict into agreement—preferably in a “win/win” scenario. The presentation was engaging and extremely useful. But it quickly drew objections from some of the young activists in the crowd, for reasons I could easily understand.

“This doesn’t apply when there’s a severe imbalance of power between two forces,” said one. My heart was with them—especially since, as Rothberg himself had said, Western dharma practitioners “tend to be conflict-avoidant.”

The conference’s keynote speakers, Ajahn Sulak and American Buddhist writer Joanna Macy, had touched on the same point during their opening addresses the night before. “Western Buddhists . . . are very suspicious of attachment,” said Macy. “They feel they need to be detached . . . so don’t get upset about racism, or injustice, or the poison in the rivers, because that . . . means you’re too attached.”

This causes some difficulty for me,” she continued, “because I’m attached.”

She added: “I think one of the problems with Westernized Buddhists is premature equanimity. When the Buddha said ‘don’t be attached,’ he meant don’t be attached to the ego.”

During our private interview, Ajahn Sulak emphasized many of the same points. “Anger arises,” he said. “That’s okay. But you must learn to translate that anger into change.”

“Some people want to be ‘goody-goody Buddhists,’” Ajahn Sulak continued, “saying nice things all the time and never challenging power. We believe in nonviolence, but that means we cannot ignore the long-term harm caused by structural violence.”

Or, as BPF’s literature says: “The system stinks.”

While the urge to avoid confrontation is strong in some sections of the Western Buddhist community, many of the leaders it reveres have been unafraid to speak bluntly. They’ve even been unafraid to use terms that border on the politically forbidden. The Dalai Lama, for example, has said he is “not only a socialist but also a bit leftist, a communist. In terms of social economy theory, I am a Marxist. I think I am farther to the left than the Chinese leaders. They are capitalists.”

Ajahn Sulak’s teacher, Buddhadasa, said, “If we hold fast to Buddhism we shall have a socialist disposition in our flesh and blood … [an] ideal of pure socialism which must be acted out, not just talked about for political purposes or for selfish, devious gain.” Ajahn Sulak told a group of Japanese Buddhists that “unless we stand united against consumerism and capitalism, we will not be able to create Dhammic Socialism.”

The Peace Fellowship’s Gathering ended with a refuge ceremony. Experienced dharma practitioners will understand that, by this action, everyone who participated became a Buddhist (or renewed their Buddhist vows). It could also be said that the people in attendance took refuge collectively, as a sangha, as a beloved community.

But there was more to come. A smaller group gathered that evening at a park in downtown Oakland. Their purpose was to demonstrate against the Urban Shield conference, which was about to take place. Urban Shield is, in effect, a trade conference for our cities’ increasingly militarized police forces—and for the vendors who profit off their purchase of heavy weaponry, drones, and other tools for the imposition of violence and the removal of personal privacy and autonomy. It was a good choice for protest, sitting as it does at the intersection of violence and capitalism.

A group of demonstrators planned to block the entrance to the Marriott Hotel, where many attendees were staying, while the rest were there to show their support. The Buddhists gathered before the watchful and slightly skeptical eyes of the park’s denizens: urban families, skateboard-wielding teens, and a homeless person or two. Protesters raised their signs: “Make Peace, Disarm Police”; “Marriott, Evict Urban Shield”; “Urban Shield = Urban Warfare.”

After a few minutes of planning and debate the group—a mix of laypeople and monastics—began its several-block-long walk to the Marriott. Accompanied by the monks’ drumming and chanting, the group passed curious pedestrians and drivers honking horns in passing automobiles, the Wells Fargo Bank glittering in the sun’s final late-evening rays. A giant flag waved atop the Oakland Tribune building, but no reporters emerged to cover the demonstration.

Once at the hotel, a dozen protesters unfurled a sign that read “Evict Urban Shield.” Then they blocked the front entrance and sat in lotus position as supporters cheered them on from the sidewalk.

I found myself moved by these young faces, some of which I now knew by name, as they sat before the hotel doors, their faces serene and their meditation posture largely impeccable. That’s Katie, in the white t-shirt. She’s one of the organizers. And that’s Dawn, her colleague. I think I saw that man, the one next to Dawn, in one of the breakout sessions…

I found myself kneeling before them, ostensibly to take their pictures.

They chose not to get arrested that evening, and the demonstration began breaking up as night fell. I walked away through the now-darkened streets of downtown Oakland. I felt a sense of parting, of separation from a community, as I walked back to my car. Outside the Oakland City Center office complex I passed a bicycle, still locked to a pole but stripped of its wheels and gears.

Driving home, I found myself lost in some back streets, passed bars filled with partiers (that’s right, it was a holiday weekend), and made my way back to a borrowed apartment. Once there I thumbed through the pictures I had taken on my phone.

Don’t just sit there, do something. At the close of this gathering, these demonstrators had resolved that generations-old conflict. There, outside the Marriott Hotel, they had done both."
2014  buddhism  richareskow  religion  individualism  socialjustice  activism  mindfulness  sulaksivaraska  thichnhathanh  quakers  truth  truthtopower  corporatism  equanimity  confrontation  socialism  marxism  politics  urbanshield  detachment  attachment 
november 2014 by robertogreco
Amazing Structure: A Conversation With Ursula Franklin - Robinson Meyer - The Atlantic
"The gender issue is really a postwar issue. Women, wherever they were, what side or what in the war situation, stepped into the places that men had left. And they were competent, and they could do it. It was only after the war, when the men came back, that they needed the mystique—that she’s a girl, and so oughtn’t [to be] there, this is a man’s job. The gender issue, in practical terms—either who [could be] in school or who thought they could do which job, which science, which math—is a postwar issue anywhere in the world.

And it’s the issue of a large number of well-organized men, who often got their training in the army during the war, returning and needing both work and justification for their organized maleness in a very hierarchical structure. These guys came out of the military, and brought skills, but mostly brought demands.

There were women who had coped—often very well in very technical [positions]—but what was needed now was a distinction between those who came out of a culture of order, discipline, and minimal consideration of an individual’s contribution. So you had to get the women out of the workplace. And that’s when that question—they can’t do math, or they are frightened of machines—that’s where all that crap comes from. But it’s there, and it took until the late ’50s when women said: “Ah ah! What’s going on here?”

It’s the collectivity—with some consciousness-raising, you see—that actually, the personal is political. It’s not that our skirts are too short or too long; it’s just that we are being pushed around and maybe we have to put a stop to it collectively. But that gender-based look at knowledge and competency is postwar.

So my school experience: It was ‘so what?’ "



"There’s no question that somebody who was in the position I was when my son was born, and said to somebody, ‘I’m pregnant.’ There’s legislation now; they have to keep your job; they have to give you that much maternity leave; you have a medical insurance system that picks up some of those expenses; and no employer can say no. That’s an enormous change.

The salary thing is still a question where one may have to struggle, but it is not that a priori a woman gets paid less for work of equal value. And there are laws that one can change. Not that people who need to challenge have the power to do so, but that exists. I mean if you see the number of women—school principals and university presidents—that is the change.

I constantly emphasize that the issue is not essentially gender. The issue is patriarchy. I must say that I myself have been surprised at the rapid rise of lady patriarchs. And of course there are lady patriarchs. I was surprised how easily young women who have all options open for patriarchy become as much the patriarch in a hierarchical structure as any man does; and conversely, how many men—how many men, not that many—have found a collaborative structure convenient and don’t pull rank. 

The developments flow from there. The main development is legislation—and that hand-waving isn’t good enough."



"[Q] And when you say “lady patriarchs,” what do you mean?

I mean women who behave as if they are generals or bishops. It makes no difference in many ways if it’s a woman or a man. In particular positions, a woman can be as inconsiderate a lady patriarch as a male patriarch would have been. So the issue is the hierarchical structuring; the issue is patriarchy.

[Q] You were also involved in strontium testing. Did that float out of your social work in the ’60s, your work as a citizen?

What you are referring to is the sense that one is a citizen first and happen to be a professional in one area or another, but you don’t stop being a citizen because you are a highway engineer or a professor of metallurgy, but you also don’t leave all your scientific knowledge when you are a resident in the district that is suddenly heavily influence by pollution from another plant; or, globally, from fallout or chemical pollution.

When you object to things like that, you bring the skills that you have to have professionally to it, as do all the others who may provide citizen input or position. The whole fabric of the democratic process comes from citizens who are competent in various ways, and my competency happens to be science. I have a certain skill in teaching to make it clear to people without using jargon what certain inevitable things, such as nuclear fallout or river pollution, mean, and that the half-life of uranium doesn’t change when you change governments. Somebody has to say that at the right place in the right language, and I’ve always taken these opportunities and, like others, contributed with the best I had.

So I’ve very much been a part of women’s peace organizations and very much meet in the most active form of pacifism—the prevention of situations that lead to war. So the pacifism, elective pacifism, are all the political and social measures against injustices that in the end drive hatred and violence.

[Q] Once you were at the University of Toronto, and got into archeometry and teaching, I suppose that followed the reforms in Canada. Did you see the university change over your time there, and just generally what was it like to be a female professor of engineering during the ’70s and ’80s?

Well… pretty lonely. You know the real difficulty is to protect and advance your women students, and to see that they are in a hassle-free learning environment. When I came to the university, I’d been around long enough to know that I wasn’t one of the gang, and I never would be. I didn’t have a desire to be one of the boys.

But the great wish—to give my women students a hassle-free, happy learning environment—that’s what’s difficult. The culture of engineering is not a culture of acceptance and understanding of anything that is female and—at the same time—equal. So that’s… that’s a real job. It was a long and hard [work] in this, and it’s by no means yet all done."

[See also Annes post about Ursula Franklin: http://designculturelab.org/2012/07/17/from-the-plsj-archives-an-extraordinary-mind/ ]
ursulafranklin  robinsonmeyer  2014  interviews  feminism  partiarchy  gender  hierarchy  hierarchies  law  legal  women  science  structures  management  organizations  history  canada  highered  highereducation  labor  regulation  standards  quakers  pacifism  peace  equality  quaker 
march 2014 by robertogreco
I'm an atheist so why am I a committed Quaker? – Nat Case – Aeon
"I contradict myself. I am an atheist and committed Quaker. Does it matter what I believe, when I recognise that religion is something I need?"



"If you are really going to be part of a community, just showing up for the main meal is not enough: you need to help cook and clean up. So it has been with me and the Quakers: I’m concerned with how my community works, and so I’ve served on committees (Quakerism is all about committees). There’s pastoral care to accomplish, a building to maintain, First-Day School (Quakerese for Sunday School) to organise. And there’s the matter of how we as a religious community will bring our witness into the world. Perhaps this language sounds odd coming from a non-theist, but as I hope I’ve shown, I’m not a non-theist first. I’ve been involved in prison visiting, and have been struck at the variety of religious attitudes among volunteers: some for whom the visiting is in itself ministry, and others for whom it’s simply social action towards justice (the programme grew out of visiting conscientious objectors in the Vietnam era). The point is: theological differences are not necessarily an issue when there’s work to be done."



"How can we do that? How can I do that? Submitting to something I am pretty sure doesn’t exist? How can I bow down to a fiction? I did it all the time as a child. Open the cover of the book, and I’m in that world. If I’m lucky, and the book is good enough, some of that world comes with me out into the world of atoms and weather, taxes and death. It’s a story, and sometimes stories are stronger than stuff.

Maybe part of the trick is realising that it doesn’t have to be just my little bubble of fiction. I can read a novel, or I can go gaming into the evening with friends. I can watch a ballet on a darkened stage, or I can roar along to my favourite band in the mosh pit. I hated school dances with a passion, yet I have been a morris dancer for 23 years now: I just had to find the form that was a right fit. I don’t pray aloud, or with prescribed formulas. But I can ask Whatever-There-Is a question, or ask for help from the universe, or say thank you. And now that I’m in a place with a better fit, sometimes I get answers back. And so there I am, a confirmed skeptic, praying in a congregation."



"A year and a half ago, our family began worshipping with a smaller Conservative Friends group. Conservative Friends are socially and theologically liberal but stricter in adhering to older Quaker practices. The group uses the Montessori-based Godly Play curriculum for the children: it’s all about stories. Every session begins with a quieting and a focusing. The leader tells a story from the Bible or from the Quaker story book. Then ‘wondering’ questions are asked that spur the children to reflect on what’s going on, and what they would do in the same situation.

I wish I’d had this great programme as a child. The teacher is a good storyteller who clearly loves the kids, and they love the stories and the time with their friends. To me, it’s such an improvement on school-style lessons. It says: this is a different kind of knowing and learning — this is not about facts and theories you need to learn, but about the stories we want to become part of your life.

I love facts and theories, the stuff of the world. I spend most of my life wrestling and dancing with all this amazing matter. As the Australian comic Tim Minchin says in his rant-poem ‘Storm’ (2008): ‘Isn’t this enough? Just this world? Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable world?’ And yes, it’s enough. We don’t need to tell lies about the real world in order to make it magical. But we do still need impossible magic for our own irrational selves. At any rate, I do.

Because I don’t feel stuff-and-logic-based explanations deep down in my toes. There are no miracle stories of flying children there, or brothers reborn into the land where the sagas come from. The language of ‘stuff is all there is’ tells me that I can — even ought to — be rational and sensible, but it doesn’t make me want to be. ‘Atheism’ tells me what I am not, and I yearn to know what I am. What I am has a spine, it’s a thing I must be true to, because otherwise it evaporates into the air, dirt and water of the hard world.

Maybe I — we — need to start small, rebuilding gods that we talk to, and who talk back. Or just one whom we can plausibly imagine, our invisible friend. Maybe part of our problem is that we don’t actually want to talk to the voice of Everything, because Everything has gotten so unfathomably huge. George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, didn’t have to think about light years, let alone billions of light years. The stars now are too far away to be our friends or speak to us in our need. Maybe we could talk to a god whom we imagined in our house. Maybe we could ask what is wanted, and hear what is needed. Maybe that god would tell us not to tramp over the earth in armies, pretending we are bigger than we are, and that dying is OK, because it’s just something that happens when your life is over. Maybe we would ask for help and comfort from unexpected places, and often enough receive it and be thankful for it.

Maybe we need to name that little god something other than God, because maybe our God has a boss who has a boss whose boss runs the universe. Maybe we name this god Ethel, or Larry, or Murgatroyd. Maybe there is no god but God... or maybe there just is no God. And maybe it doesn’t matter. Maybe we just tell stories that ring true to us and say up-front that we know they are fiction. We can let people love these stories or hate them. Maybe imagining impossible things — such as flying, the land where sagas come from, God — is what is needed. Maybe we don’t need the gods to be real. Maybe all we need is to trust more leaps of the imagination."
philosophy  quakers  atheism  2013  natcase  religion  belief  literature  fiction  skepticism  stories  storytelling  listening  learning  life  magic  wonder  truth  logic  trust  imagination  community  committees  myth  myths  josephcampbell  robert  barclay  via:jenlowe  everyday  quaker 
august 2013 by robertogreco
RADical Design for LEARNING -- Survey Seminar and Practical Action Laboratory
"Wtf is going on? Why are people limping out of 20 years of schooling without directed motivation, a solid internal compass, or a commitment to passionately pursuing their interests? Let's examine why in a cozy, edgy, authentic seminar where we balance theory with real-world action (praxis). We'll study the radical learning greats such as Illich, Papert, and Llewelyn, with focused readings and videos followed by discussion. Whenever possible we'll try to have the authors or their direct students available for Q&A&Q. And through hands-on labs and projects we'll design and enact experience-based transformations, like improvised music, consciousness altering strategies, electronics workshops etc. We can't wait to see you realize your wonderful ideas!"
unschooling  deschooling  education  syllabus  jaysilver  ericrosenbaum  mit  learning  mitmedialab  medialab  lifelongkindergarten  amosblanton  lego  seymourpapert  ivanillich  gracellewelyn  bilalghalib  jefflieberman  making  hackerspaces  lcproject  makerspaces  openstudioproject  grading  rubrics  assessment  diy  notbacktoschoolcamp  johnholt  piaget  mitchresnick  leahbuechley  eleanorduckworth  nuvu  nuvustudio  holeinthewall  sugatamitra  sprout  elsistema  theblueschool  computerclubhouse  drishya  bakhtiarmikhak  sudburyschools  sudburyvalleyschool  samcassat  seanstevens  frostburn  quaker  criticalmass  burningman  paulofreire  quakers  sprout&co  jeanpiaget  syllabi 
june 2013 by robertogreco
The Friends Council on Education
"As the only national organization of Friends schools, the Friends Council on Education is in a unique position to assist schools and their teachers, students, and families by providing publications and programs to support the implementation of Friends values in the classroom and in the life of the school community.

Friends Council nurtures the spiritual life of Friends schools, strengthens the connections between the schools, and promotes Friends education through providing consulting services, professional development seminars, literature to support Quaker testimonies in school life, and peer network meetings across schools.

The Friends Council website provides resources to member schools and the general public on Friends education, peace education and Quakerism, as well as a job posting service and information and links to member schools. The Council also maintains an online forum for dialogue among Friends schools faculty, staff, and trustees. All peer networks have groups on this forum, and the forum has over 1,000 members: www.friendscouncil.net "
friendscouncil  education  quaker  quakers  schools 
february 2013 by robertogreco
Woolman at Sierra Friends Center | Educational Community for Peace, Justice & Sustainability
"Woolman is a nonprofit educational community dedicated to the principles of peace, justice and sustainability. Originally founded in 1963 as a Quaker high school, Woolman now offers educational programs for teens, retreats for adults, and summer camps for children and families. John Woolman, an 18th century Quaker human rights activist who aspired to live his life in complete integrity with his principles inspired the name for the school.

Located on 230 acres in the Sierra Nevada Foothills within walking distance of the Yuba river, the Woolman campus is an experiment in sustainable community living. Most of our produce grows here in our organic garden, and much of our energy comes from solar, wood, and other renewable resources; ideas of Permaculture and conservation weave throughout the Woolman culture. As a Quaker community we welcome people of all backgrounds, and do not require or push any religious beliefs. While many of our staff and participants do not identify as Quaker, the Quaker ideals of inquiry-based education, consensus decision making, peace, equality, and integrity provide the foundation to our shared endeavor."

[See specifically The Woolman Semester: http://semester.woolman.org/ ]

"The Woolman Semester School is a progressive academic school for young people who want to make a difference in the world.

Students in their junior, senior, or gap year come for a "semester away" to take charge of their education and study the issues that matter most to them.

Woolman students earn transferable high school credits while taking an active role in their learning experience through community work, organic gardening and cooking, permaculture, art, wilderness exploration, service work, and by doing advocacy and activism work with real issues of peace, justice and sustainability in the world."
woolman  sierras  quakers  quaker  sierranevadas  johnwoolman  education  consensus  teens  summercamps  northerncalifornia  california  inquiry-basedlearning  inquiry  permaculture  servicelearning  service  progressive  learning  advocacy  peace  justice  sustainability  semesterprograms 
february 2013 by robertogreco
Silence and Speech
"If you feel moved to contribute after others have spoken, our experience is that it is as well to leave a fair time, and ask yourself whether you will be carrying further what has already been said. It is practically never right to spring up immediately."

"For our present purpose, the essential point is that what we receive in our meetings strengthens us in our daily lives; and then in turn we bring back our experiences to our meetings, where they may sometimes give rise to ministry. This two-way traffic is not regulated by rules or achieved through theological doctrines or political theories; it is a quiet unseen process, which is seldom exciting or dramatic but can in the long run have deep and far-reaching effects. Another early Quaker, Robert Barclay, wrote, 'When I came into the silent assemblies of God's people I found the evil in me weakening and the good raised up.' Many Quakers since his day have testified to similar experiences…"
thinking  meditation  meetings  friendsmeetings  ministry  robertbarclay  process  doctrine  deschooling  unschooling  rules  restraint  speech  silence  practice  religion  richardallen  1992  quakers  quaker 
january 2013 by robertogreco
‘Red Brick, Black Mountain, White Clay,’ by Christopher Benfey - NYTimes.com
"Surely the word “vessel” must rate high among the loveliest in the English language. Its meaning contains (vessel-like) a well-wrought urn, a far-­sailing ship, a throbbing vein. Spoken, its whispering consonants cut swiftly past. Printed, its letters even resemble a boat: jutting prow, double-curved hull, high stern. Can it be a coincidence that this Middle English artifact encloses — centered perfectly — the Latin esse, the primal verb “to be”?

And to paraphrase Emily Dickinson only slightly, there is no vessel like a book. Especially when it’s as well wrought and far-sailing as Christopher Benfey’s “Red Brick, Black Mountain, White Clay,” a book about earthen vases, epic voyages and ancestral blood. Part memoir, part family saga, part travelogue, part cultural history, it takes readers on a peripatetic ramble across America and beyond, paying calls on Cherokee potters, Bauhaus craftsmen, colonial clay-diggers and the author’s brick-mason grandfather."
craftsmanship  quakers  history  art  toread  books  christopherbenfrey  blackmountaincollege  vessels  emilydickinson  bmc  quaker 
august 2012 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read