 sj |
||
|
||
Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Aug 01 - 06:47 PM I sit 2000 miles away, so getting information is not easy. I don't believe that it has been covered in the local papers. The Miami Herald site only gives abstracts- the latest says that the $8 million suit review comes up in November. Certainly guest is not providing information on why the settlement was overturned. From what I can see so far, the FA is getting a bum rap from people with emotions but little thought. If the other guest "From Florida" is correct in his comments, perhaps the Adams chain has a legal position. There is little point in further posting since guest (who started this) has shown that he cannot present rational, factual arguments. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 13 Aug 01 - 06:51 PM Guest - (if that is your real name!) You bring up some good points but relax! The only way to win supporters to any cause is to get them to trust you, not alienate people with abusive retorts. As for the anonymous postings. It absolutely is important and has consequence. The Klan used to wear hoods to hide their faces. I think a lot of people mistrust or ignore voices they can't recongize. People who have the courtesy to stand up for what they believe in are more apt to taken more seriously then an anonymous crank. Sorry guest, I don't mean to sound negative, but you have inadvertently clouded the real issue at hand. You did a very important service to all of us by bringing this issue up here at Mudcat. Many of us may not have been aware of the situation. Thank you for making us aware! Ron |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Aug 01 - 06:56 PM Well it's not a particulary important thing GUEST - but three times on this thread so far there have been consecutive posts by GUEST following directly on GUEST. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:02 PM So it make life easier to following the argument to know whether for example these are contributions by separate people, or a second post by the same person. Like I just did here.
It's just that that kind of thing focuses attention on the messenger, rather than on the message. And the message, or rather the topic is what is of interest here.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:20 PM Ron, Thanks, but I'm neither upset or hysterical. The response I gave was perfectly appropriate to Dicho's provocations. As to using the Klan analogy for anonymous posting in Mudcat, you couldn't be more inflammatory. To equate my or any other anonymous guest's contributions to the actions of the Klan is indefensible. BTW, the Klan still wears hoods.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:25 PM Dicho, It isn't my or anyone else's responsibility to spoon feed you information, or otherwise provide you with information you are perfectly capable of finding on your own. This is at the bottom of barrel of specious arguments of the day. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:28 PM catspaw, I believe the so-called "difficulties" Adams Mark spoke of are best viewed in the context of "kids on spring break in Florida" types of disturbances, certainly no rioting as you said. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:40 PM Guest - I certainly did not make my statement as an analogy to any ones contribution here on Mudcat. That is ridiculous and inflammatory! On a subject like this, an anonymous poster could have obvious ties to either Folk Alliance or the NAACP. Why should we listen to someone who can't stand by their name? Ron |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:43 PM Ron, See "file anonymous guest complaints here" thread please. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: Sorcha Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:49 PM From the NAACP offical site: Q & A for Adam's Mark Pickets August 10-11, 2001
Q: Why is the NAACP calling for a massive, all-out boycott of the Adam's Mark hotel chain?
A: The NAACP is boycotting the Adam's Mark hotel chain because in 1999, the NAACP, (on behalf of some hotel guests and visitors) the U.S. Department of Justice and the State of Florida filed separate lawsuits against Adams Mark, saying that the hotel chain violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (public accommodations law guaranteeing every citizen the right to use equally hotels, parks, restaurants and other public places). These lawsuits were filed after people attending Black College Reunion Weekend in Daytona Beach, Fla. alleged that as guests at Adam's Mark, they were forced to wear non-detachable, neon orange identification wristbands, forced to enter the hotel through barricades and a heavy police presence, and rented only the most basic rooms. Although, Adam's Mark initially agreed to an NAACP's $ 8 million settlement, the trial judge refused to approve the settlement on procedural grounds. That decision is on appeal and Adam's Mark has refused to support the appeal, or to otherwise settle the guests' and the State the State of Florida's case, the NAACP called for an all-out boycott of the hotel chain at our National Convention in July. (Please note that the settlement was not approved by the judge because of "procedural grounds". Nothing more is said anywhere about which procedures or whose procedures were not correct) |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: mousethief Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:50 PM Who's that clip-cloppin' over my bridge? |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: mousethief Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:54 PM Seems to me that in this country, we are innocent until proven guilty, and the courts have said that Adam Mark's previous "Guilty" conviction (so to speak) was somehow incorrect. I'm willing to wait for a final ruling before deciding that A.M. is a hotbed of 21-century racism. Until the legal dust has settled, the righteous indignation against the Folk Alliance seems misplaced. alex |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Aug 01 - 07:55 PM I'd think the Klan analogy was essentially about the undeniable fact that if someone stood up at a public meeting swathed in white robes, people would see the costume and wouldn't hear what the person inside was saying, however sensible and humane that might in fact be.
In that kind of context the effect would be to concentrate attention on the individual, though not on their words. Not the anonymity of self-abnegation, but the anonymity of someone seeking to draw attention to themselves rather than contributing to an exchange of views. At least that is how it would be interpreted, and predictably so.
But it really would be better to talk about those kind of things in another thread about those kind of things, and there are bound to be more of them (and there are maybe some interesting ideas there to be unravelled and explored. But surely not here.)
Reverting to the Folk Alliance - could someone explain where it fits in, and what does. Is it analogous to the English Folk Dance and Song Society? Or Comhaltas ? If it crumbles or splits what difference is that likely to make? |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Aug 01 - 08:14 PM First, let me revert to some info on "Adam's Mark." I would urge you all to go to THIS WEBSITE........Read. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 01 - 08:27 PM McGrath, The Klan has nothing to do with this thread or the boycott. Period. FA was founded by some Californians active on the folk scene, who felt folk needed professionalizing (and no, they haven't been universally praised for their "mission"). The annual conference is done somewhat similarly to South by Southwest, if you are familiar with that one. Its an opportunity for performers to network for gigs, to get signed to a label, get representation, hawk their wares,that sort of thing. Its unlikely the organization could be split. The leadership (ie executive committee) is still largely under the thumb of the founders, as I understand it. More likely the dissenting membership would be disenfranchised, as happened in the KPFA case. And considering where you sit, you likely aren't familiar with that one either. So suffice it to say, a lot of people don't like the rough equivalent of folk suits at FA dictating to the folk community at large, which they do not represent. I can't see anything positive coming out of this for FA. Nothing whatsoever. They appear to have boiled the tar and brought the feathers. As to the conference being necessary, no--I'm quite sure the NA folk community can get on quite well without them.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: mousethief Date: 13 Aug 01 - 08:27 PM Thank you, Spaw. I stand corrected. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: Sorcha Date: 13 Aug 01 - 08:32 PM Good heavens, Pat. I stand corrected also. Garrun-damn-tees I'll never stay in one of their hotels. I was just trying to keep an open mind about the whole thing, but that site blows that away doesn't it? "Old South image" indeed.....!!!! My enlightenment for the day I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: DougR Date: 13 Aug 01 - 08:34 PM Hear, hear, Alex! I agree with you! (there will be a brief pause while Mousethief recovers) The executive committee of most nonprofit organizations is charged with the responsibility of making decisions for the organization it has been elected to represent. There will ALWAYS be folks who disagree with the decisions made by that group. GUEST may have a perfectly legitimate grievance but the Executive Committee's side has yet to be heard from here in the Mudcat. We have only heard GUEST's views. If I were a member, I would want to know more about why the Executive Committee's decided as it did before making a decision either way. I have a feeling those of you who are members will be hearing from them directly(through the Executive Director) very soon. And I can assure you McGrath, I certainly know of NO nonprofit organization in this country that could easily "eat" $300,000 in this country. Particularly a national service organization as this one apparently is. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 01 - 08:37 PM Mousethief, Apparently the word of the NAACP isn't good enough for you. Is there a sufficiently white organization you need to hear this information from before you accept that Adams Mark hotels have a long history of institutionalized racial discrimination? |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 01 - 08:44 PM Doug R, Since you apparently haven't bothered to read this thread (and so presumably don't mind your ignorance showing), I would direct you to Deb C's post of 12:57 p.m. wherein she quotes the Executive Director's justification for violating the NAACP boycott. You might also like to read the messages here from Tedham Porterhouse, a Folk Alliance member who has been contributing to this thread. You may also follow the story on the Folk Alliance email list, which you may join with ease by following the instructions provided on their listserv page, provided by Guest in their 3:27 p.m. message. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Aug 01 - 08:55 PM Catspaw is the first to come up with something that is not a position statement put out by one of the two principal litigants. The fact that the National Bar Assn. is withholding custom from the hotel chain until a decision is made is an important point. The Folk Alliance is still in the frying pan. If it is a small group, they cannot afford to lose money or engage in litigation to protect their stake. Contracts not honored are to lawyers what rotten fruit is to fruit flies- you lose even if you win. Americans are litigious; it has become a game and the ridiculous monetary awards only extend the time taken up in the courts, at great taxpayer expense.. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Aug 01 - 09:26 PM Dear Guest, you too could do with some reading of the thread before you dis ol' Mousethief. At 8:27, he posted this:
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
Thank you, Spaw. I stand corrected.
Alex This was after reading the link I posted to the OAH site, an organization of many colors. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 01 - 10:10 PM Right catspaw, read the link you posted. I may be in the minority, but I always read the links other posters provide of this sort. The problem I'm having with a few posters here is what appears to me to be a presumption on their part that the word of the NAACP should be treated as suspect regarding racial discrimination against African Americans. The OAH reflects a diverse constituency, it is true, but they don't represent African Americans exclusively, as the NAACP does. This case is about racial discrimination against African Americans specifically. So one wonders why the NAACP suit against the hotel chain is viewed with such suspicion, particularly in light of the previous judgments against the hotel chain in question for similar civil rights violations.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: DougR Date: 14 Aug 01 - 01:40 AM I did read the whole thread, rude guest. I did not, however, read the link Pat provided. I just read it and it seems to me that Folk Alliance either did not have access to that information, or they must have believed that the situation had been corrected when they booked the hotel. The charges against the hotel were made in the 90s. Isn't it possible that the hotel has in the intirim taken corrective measures? Or perhaps, rude guest, it is your position that even if they have, they should still be punished for past transgressions? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: Art Thieme Date: 14 Aug 01 - 02:27 AM I'd feel much better about trying to make up my mind on this if I knew who the hell GUEST is---who he/she represents---how his or her ox is getting gored and why they have chosen to gore our ox. It seems like a very convenient way for other agendaed people to create havoc here in folkieland while we are conveniently caught between Iraq and a hard place. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST,..gargoyle Date: 14 Aug 01 - 02:27 AM I'm all FOR the boycott.....
You won't find my black, sorry ass seattin' in them seats, at them thar conference gatherin'.
If it is still within "current" memory....it ain't "folk." This was corporate bigotry at its worst.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Aug 01 - 05:35 AM I don't get it - whether you are an individual or an organisation, if you book a room or whatever in advance and then you decide to cancel it, where does the litigation come in?
You just pay up whatever the appropriate amount is, which can't very well be more than the amount you would have paid anyway. How's it different from buying something and then throwing it away? If I buy something in America and decide to bin it, I can really get sued by the people who sold it to me?
And though $300,000 is a fair old sum, if the alternative is to lose its membership I'd think that could be a lot more damaging. Anyway organisations come and go and die and get reborn. They aren't what matters. (And the point I was making wasn't about the Klan as such, it was about "anonymous" clothing. But that's a matter better left to another thread anyway.)
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 01 - 07:18 AM I expect people to come to these discussions informed. If you aren't informed about the subject, it is easy to do. This story has been around a long time. The NAACP story was carried by all the networks and mass media in the US over the weekend. One can enter any number of keywords at Google, and find a lot of objective and subjective information about this case. When people come into threads about subjects they clearly know nothing about, and selectively start attacking a poster who's opinion/position they have decided they don't like, is flame baiting and trolling. Flame baiting and trolling has consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: John P Date: 14 Aug 01 - 07:39 AM Is there any way we can discuss this subject while completely ignoring the posts from our rude guest? I am as outraged as the next person about the whole FA / NAACP thing, but I am equally outraged by a rude, stongly opinionated person who hides behind his anonymity while insulting anyone who doesn't immediately fall into lockstep with his opinion. I thought the comparison to the Klan was, in some ways, apt. I also think that comparisons to obscene or crank phone callers are apt. Imagine yourself in any social gathering, perhaps a meeting of your local Folklore Society. There is a person there that no one knows who is delivering strong opinions while flinging insults at other people in the room. She repeatedly refuses to give anyone her name. What is your response? And no, this comment does not belong in another thread. The rude behavior is happening in this thread. John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: John P Date: 14 Aug 01 - 07:44 AM As for the Folk Alliance, I'm not a member and wouldn't have gone to the conference anyway. I went to one several years ago and quickly decided that they were pursuing a completely different agenda than I am. Their deciding not to move or cancel their conference certainly confirms that decision for me. John |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: Grab Date: 14 Aug 01 - 08:40 AM $300,000 is a lot of money for your typical organisation. Even if the Folk Alliance was collecting millions a year, it's still a lot of money, and non-profit-making organisations generally work with pretty tight budgets to ensure that the money they collect goes to benefit their cause - in fact, being an officer of the organisation and hoarding money instead of using it for the stated purpose of the organisation is a good recipe for having legal action taken against you! They doubtless will have a cash buffer, but $300k is a big hit. I couldn't find details of the NAFA budgets on the web, so I couldn't say exactly what proportion it would be. Incidentally Guest, why do you say that NAFA are lying when they say that they can't move the booking for the reasons they gave? What evidence do _you_ have against them? Remember that hundreds of ppl have paid for this already. An acceptable move for NAFA would be to poll its members to see what they reckon, with three options: (a) stay there, (b) cancel this year, or (c) move somewhere else, and every member pays an extra $350 (or more, since late-booking will be more expensive). (c) won't fly; $350 is a big hit anyway, and $700 for a conference just wouldn't be an option for most folkies. (b) is the highly-principled option, but if I'd paid $350 then I'd be pissed off if I didn't get something for it - the words "class action" spring to mind. And (a) is what they've opted for - it's financially safe, but gets brickbats from the more militant members. I agree Guest, it does look strange that they've got the press release out on Monday when the news only came out on Saturday. It depends though; it may be that the NAFA management have been running themselves ragged all weekend trying to find an alternative, and second-guessing them like that is just kicking them in the teeth for their efforts. Just a thought. As far as the AM issue goes, I quote:- In 1999, the NAACP, the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and three private law firms filed a lawsuit on behalf of several guests at the Daytona Beach property. The plaintiffs allege they were forced to prepay for rooms and amenities; wear non-detachable, neon-orange identification wristbands; and enter the hotel through barricades staffed by a heavy police presence. The plaintiffs also allege that the hotel refused to allow its African American guests to unload their luggage in its covered entryway and refused to rent to them anything but the most basic rooms, reserving its better rooms for employees and police officers staying at the hotel. Re the coloured patches, at most well-organised conferences/gatherings I've been to the organisers give out coloured wrist-bands or badges to identify who's legitimately there, which makes it easier for letting ppl in and out of the facility without making it a mecca for gatecrashers. These are usually simple paper bands with a self-adhesive tag, so that once they're on, you can only get them off by breaking the band. It also seems that the police had rented a portion of the hotel for their own use. Maybe the police had arranged with the hotel that these better rooms would be kept vacant for other policemen arriving later - this is not an unusual state of affairs. And is anyone surprised that there was a police presence when 100,000 ppl are gathered in one place? Hell, it would be incompetent not to have a police presence! I will agree that forcing ppl to prepay and refusing to allow unloading outside the hotel is unpleasant, petty behaviour, and the management responsible for those decisions should have been reprimanded. Barricades - hmm, not good, but was this AM's decision or the police? Which continues to AM's defence of its staff when they should really have been dealing with the problem. Does anyone have access to the AM version of events, for comparison? Note that I'm not saying there wasn't discrimination against these ppl, merely that it'd be good to hear what both sides are saying about the situation. For the benefit of at least one Guest, information comes from all sides. If you agree with it or if you don't, you can talk about it, but don't insult the ppl who are providing it. DebC got shot down for posting NAFA's press release, which was downright unpleasant. And if you've got more info, post it! Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 01 - 08:50 AM Graham, I think I've made my opinions clear on both the NAACP actions against the hotel chain, and on FA's decision to violate the NAACP boycott. I am not going to engage in the "I don't think the hotel chain was wrong or racist" dialog. As to information, as I said earlier, if you want information about this case, go find it. People posting their opinions in discussion forums are in no way obligated to "proving" their opinions are valid to those who disagree with them. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Aug 01 - 08:52 AM Couldn't possibly agree more John. If you look at the history of the FA, it has moved away from it's beginnings and over time and at this point seems to be just another "trade show." Because a significant part of the original idea was in fact the "showcase" concept, then perhaps I am wrong. It just seems to me that any "politicism" which was alos a part of it's roots have been diminished over time and are now pretty non-existent. If this is the choice of the membership then the conference should go on and perhaps another organization will spring from the grass roots with similar goals of the original FA. Considering the Mission Statement of the FA at this time, I'd say the conference is a sure thing. GOALS OF THE FOLK ALLIANCE To increase understanding of the rich variety, artistic value, cultural and historical significance, and continuing relevance of folk music and dance among educators, media, and the general public. To provide a bridge to and from folk music and dance organizations and needed resources, and to help those organizations link with their constituencies. To influence decision makers and resource providers on the national, state, provincial, and local levels, insuring the growth of folk music and dance. To support and encourage the development of new and existing grassroots folk music and dance organizations. To strengthen the effectiveness of folk music and dance organizations by providing professional development opportunities. Nothing I see there would lead me to believe that any form of political activism is a part of that organization........in which case, the whole discussion here and elsewhere is moot. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Aug 01 - 09:02 AM I suspect that the option chosen by the FA may turn out to be the most self-destructive of all.
Cancelling would presumably mean that people would get their money back, or a credit for next years. And the FA would have a big hole in their budget, along with a lot of goodwill from people who maybe could help them towards filling it.
What I suspect will happen, because that's the way these things happen, is that they'll muddle along, alienating lots of members and probably provoking some of them into breaking away ("provos") - and then they'll either cancel later on (but too late to get the goodwill thta an earlier cancellation could get), or go ahead with lots of cancellations and lose a lot of money. So a challenging situation becomes a disaster for the organisation rather than an opprtunity. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 01 - 09:07 AM I wouldn't say its moot at all catspaw. Folk Alliance HAS addressed the issue of music and politics (see guest post of 13 Aug 3:41 p.m.) in it's conferences. It has also attempted to drape itself in the garb of progressive, left leaning politics by choosing to honor (through lifetime achievement awards to the likes of Paul Robeson) and book politically active musicians like Steve Earle to appear at conferences to fill the seats. They can't have it both ways with this one. Neither their progressive left membership or the progressive left folk musicians will allow that to happen without a fight, whether they are FA members or not. One need not be a FA member to join the protest against FA's decision. One just need to have a functioning moral compass, a conscience which moves one to take action rather than just spout off in internet discussion forums, and knowledge of the facts of the case.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Aug 01 - 09:13 AM This seems what the FA is doing to change the world today. It's an issue but not hardly on par with Civil Rights: Music in the Air Music in the Air is an independent project organized to challenge the carry-on restrictions facing airline travelers. Musicians whose instruments usually exceed the 22-inch length are most vulnerable to Senate bill S1294. If passed, this bill (which is still in the transportation committee) will create an FAA regulation restricting carry-ons to 22x14x9 dimensions across all airlines. Lobbying efforts are underway to defeat the bill. Music in the Air is distributing a survey, the resulting data to be used in negotiations with airlines interested in forming partnerships and alliances with musicians. Several organizations are working toward a positive outcome. The Traveling Musician's Union, Local 1000 has a copy of the survey on their website. Click to their home page for the survey, and fax it back. I'm sorry for being so cynical and seemingly anti-FA, but there is a significant difference between folkies singing on the picket lines versus burning up the FAX lines. Spaw Spaw
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST,Rude Date: 14 Aug 01 - 09:13 AM McGrath, I think your assessment of 9:02 a.m. is dead on. I said it yesterday, and I'll say it again. I think FA has signed it's own death warrant with this decision. If their leadership is that naive, I say they bloody well deserve what they get. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST,Russ Date: 14 Aug 01 - 09:16 AM A number of participants in this thread seem to think that $300,000 is a high price to pay for principal. Just to pick three names at random, anybody remember Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney? $300,000 looks pretty cheap compared to the price they paid. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Aug 01 - 09:19 AM My point is Guest that if the FA has moved so far away and only pays lip service........Why would anyone be surprised at the attitude they have regarding this? Again, if the wishes of the membership are to maintain the "trade show" qualities of the FA (read the mission statement for other goals) and that's it, then what is past is over and not worth discussing since politically, the group is dead, all protestations and awards on their part to the contrary. I think that's where they are....just an opinion. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: sophocleese Date: 14 Aug 01 - 09:25 AM I would at this point in this fascinating discussion like to remind people that not every person on the net has unlimited time or budget or skill to search for information about a subject they are only just becoming aware of. NAACP may have been in the American news recently but not necessarily in the news around the globe. I am grateful for all of the links provided by various people in this thread and I am grateful to a Guest for bringing it up in the first place. Certainly if I were a member of the FA intending to attend the conference I would be doing a lot of research and thinking about this one. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 01 - 09:58 AM I appreciate the suggestion Sophocleese, that not all users are US citizens, or have unlimited budgets for doing on-line research. However, having lived both sides the pond, I also know that a great deal of the information available on-line is also available in public libraries. Via cable and satellite TV. Via international news programs on the radio. I appreciate too that people posting to this thread who reside outside the US as well as inside the US, are hearing of this case for the first time. But considering the amount of time many of them seem to be spending in Mudcat, I doubt that tight budgets for on-line time is the reason for their not knowing the facts in the case. Anyone who is interested in finding out more about the case needs to do just that. Research and reflection about the case, the boycott, and FA's reaction to it. And yes, certainly, if one is an FA member or had plans to attend either one of the regional FA conferences coming up in the fall, or the national conference being discussed here which is schedule for Feb 2001, should be doing their research and reflection at this time. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: Rick Fielding Date: 14 Aug 01 - 11:46 AM I agree with Guest '958' on how crucial it is to collect as much information as possible before taking a stand on something this volatile. Since yesterday I've tried to cull as much as I can from the net, but the telephone has been the most illuminating source of info for me since then. The people I've talked to who use the annual Folk Alliance Convention as a networking device to help set up tours, are really conflicted. (no surprise there) It would appear that many are trying to see the "grey" areas in this mess in order to attend, while still feeling they have a conscience. I think that for many of the "over forties" it's substantially more black and white, and crossing a picket line would be far more than just an annoyance. I'll have a new album by then, and I'd like to make some Florida contacts (haven't played there in almost twenty years), plus it's fun to shmooze with folks you only see once a year, but from what I've found out so far, it doesn't look good. Does anyone know if any prominent folkies (Seeger, Phillips, Paxton, etc.) have made any statements? I doubt if anything they might say would affect my decision (I'm gonna try and wade through the boring details of the action itself) but I'd certainly be interested in hearing what they had to say. Bummer! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 01 - 11:57 AM I agree Rick, this really is a bummer. Especially in light of what this is doing to the membership, and the non-member occasssional and regular conference attendees. The FA Executive Committee has put people in a really terrible position of having to cross a NAACP picket line to attend the conference. It really is just despicable. Maybe the "under forty" set, the vast majority of who I'd guess have never walked a picket line or known anyone who has, needs this experience to awaken them to what is at stake beyond their own selfish self-interests. In fact, that may well be the opportunity in this crisis. To awaken the consciences of a younger generation who have never been confronted with such a blatant case of injustice before, and forced to take a stand one way or the other. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: Rick Fielding Date: 14 Aug 01 - 12:05 PM Hmmmmm, good point GUEST 1157. R. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST,Russ Date: 14 Aug 01 - 12:22 PM As I age (ungracefully) I increasingly find myself in the middle of conversations I cannot believe I am having. As I browse this thread I see the same pathetic rationalizations for inaction that I saw 50, 40, 30 years ago.
Don't do anything because:
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Aug 01 - 12:26 PM Yeah, it's a point..........I'll believe it when it happens. Rick, what grey areas are they trying to find? Being over 50 I see this pretty black and white, especially in light of both Adam's Mark reputation and the current mission statement of the FA. I think it just points up the lack of political action within the FA and that the organization has become simply another promotional tool, regardless of past history. There is nothing wrong with a promotional tool. It is the hypocrisy of what many believed the FA was about versus the reality of what it is. There are a lot of folkies I can't see crossing a picket line for a promotional tool..........and once again, that's just an opinion. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 01 - 12:32 PM I've got it! A Shadow Folk Alliance Conference! Hey--we did it to the Republican and Democrat National Conventions--can you imagine how wonderful a sideshow we could make of a Shadow Conference? What fun it would be! How great the music, the jugglers and stilt walkers, the street hawkers and fighters, and the merry mayhem we could wreak in the shadows of Adams Mark Jacksonville? Folkies could network, peform their own workshops, panel discussions and performances, and none would have to be left out in the cold except the cold hearted merchants of cash!
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Aug 01 - 12:34 PM I suppose one way to be around for networking and avoid crossing the picket line might be to go along and stand on the picket line. (And that's not a sarky suggestion, it's straight up - picket lines can be good places to be. Especially if there are people around who are into singing rather than shouting.) |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: mousethief Date: 14 Aug 01 - 12:46 PM I shouldn't do this, but I"m a sucker. GUEST who posted at 13-Aug-01 08:37pm: Your post is a flame, and it is not at all necessary to impute base motives to people on the list. If you are the same GUEST that is ranting and raving about members being nasty to GUESTs, you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite of the highest degree. The color is not the issue. You have a fight between Joe and Bob. If you want to find out what really happened, sure you listen to Joe and Bob, but a third opinion is probably going to stand you in better stead. What Catspaw49 provided in the post 08-Aug-01 8:14PM was a third opinion. Dragging color into it, as you did, was inflammatory, rude, racist, and hypocritical. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP From: harpgirl Date: 14 Aug 01 - 12:55 PM That about settles it for me. I ordered a volunteer application so I could join the fun for the first time. I've always wanted to go to an FA conference. This one is in Jacksonville, only 160 miles from me, finally close. But if I have to cross an NAACP picket line to get into the hotel it is out of the question. Only 300 folkies with a thousand dollars would be needed to buy the FA's way out of this hotel deal and park it somewhere else. Surely, a grassroots fundraiser to buy out the conference is possible before February. But I live in Florida and I have not seen adequate coverage of these issues. I read a lot of papers and magazines, too. Guess I'll have to do some research. But I might have to hold a session in Hanna Park to take advantage of the opportunity to play with so many old folkies! |
| Share Thread: |