Wednesday, June 29, 2011

The Eupan Global Initiative as an SA Partner

In several public and a few private events recently, I have been asked "What is the Eupan Global Initiative again?" 


Or, as one person asked, "You're an anti-Genocide group, right?"


So, this post is intended to clarify a few things.


The Eupan Global Initiative is not a "membership" based group.  We don't have members - only interested, shared partners.  We do not have a mailing list - though we do have an email distribution list we have used, only on a few occasions.


We do have persons who are more invested and involved than others - involving engagement with our events, or with other events where we partner in advocacy.  And, no doubt we have had shared partners over the years who have invested their efforts elsewhere, while we also get new invested partners that show up throughout each new year.

We are not (at least currently) a 501(c)3 - not-for-profit charitable organization.  We have explored all the legal options toward this - but have not pursued it at this time.


We are not (at least currently) a 501(c)4 - not-for-profit which allows for active lobby in politics.  Obviously we have explored this and not pursued it, either.


We are not an organization based out of any school or specific religion or creed.  Several of the early partners were (or are) connected with the Church of the Nazarene and I, Marty Michelson, am an ordained Elder in the church and a professor at a Nazarene University - but our partnerships are as broad and deep as various partners are connected and "networked" in various agencies or other groups.

  • Primarily we are an SA partnership.  (I don't think the SA term is popular - it is simply helping me to identify where I see the Eupan Global Initiative.)


By SA I mean that we are a Shared Awareness partnership - and - a Shared Advocacy partnership - and - a Solidarity in Action partnership –and – a Scholarly Alert partnership.

  • What does that mean - these SA Terms?


By using these terms I am trying to highlight that we are not a lobby based or faith based or non-profit "group" or business.  Rather, we partner in shared ways to help contribute to and raise awareness (education) and participation with (advocacy - literally - add-voice - adding our voice) in solidarity with deliberate actions.   We educate (make people aware).  We advocate.  We act.  We are alert.


Not all persons in the Eupan Global Initiative will choose to act in the same ways or advocate in the same ways.  But, we are attempting to help be a conscious, deliberate, and attentive voice - particularly in the heart of Oklahoma and the OKC Metro to raise awareness about many issues.  That does not mean that all of our events or awareness takes place in Oklahoma!  Certainly we want to give focus here in Oklahoma - and highlight causes in Oklahoma - but it also means we broaden persons horizons to become informed about issues around the world.


One of our challenges - since our "good for the all" effort is so broad - would be that we might be "too diverse" or even "too diffuse" (and not effective) in the issues that we share in awareness, advocacy and action.  This is true.  We could be too diffuse. 


But, for now - our broad based awareness, advocacy and action is appropriate as we do all that we can, for any we can, in advancing the good for the all. 


In answer to the question, "What is the Eupan Global Initiative?"

  • We are an SA Group.
  • We Share Awareness
  • We Support Advocacy
  • We engage Solidarity in Action.
  • We research the best Scholarship to be Alert

Toward eupan.


~ marty alan michelson, ph.d.

Posted via email from Eupan Global Initiative

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

John W. Burton on Violence and Peace

41s8cny7csl

John W. Burton, an early thinker in peace and conflict studies and the author of Conflict Resolution (among many texts) and a professor at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in Virginia and a fellow at the United States Institute for Peace, created a neologism – provention.

It is a combination of engaging prevention of violence while also promoting peace. 


Burton has written:

conflict provention means deducing from an adequate explanation of the phenomenon of conflict, including its human dimensions, not merely the conditions that create an environment of conflict, and the structural changes required to remove it, but more importantly, the promotion of conditions that create cooperative relationships.



May we be the kind of people who work for provention – the prevention of violence – and the promotion of peace.

Toward eupan.


~ marty alan michelson, ph.d.

Posted via email from Eupan Global Initiative

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Fascinating and Provocative Speech

A fascinating and provocative speech by John Pilger on the occasion of accepting the Sydney (Australia) Peace Prize in 2009.

Many Australian specific comments - but a provocative agenda on peace and "PR - Public Relations." 


<p>Sydney Peace Prize 2009 from John Pilger on Vimeo.</p>


Toward eupan.

~ marty alan michelson, ph.d.

Posted via email from Eupan Global Initiative

Monday, June 13, 2011

In Celebration of Dialogue

1416183_com_dialogue

Let’s celebrate dialogue:

 

  1. Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together towards common understanding. Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong.
  2. In dialogue finding common ground is the goal. In debate winning is the goal.
  3. In dialogue one listens to the other side in order to understand, find meaning, and find agreement. In debate one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments.
  4. Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participant’s point of view. Debate affirms a participant’s own point of view.
  5. Dialogue reveals assumptions for re- evaluation. Debate defends assumptions as truth.
  6. Dialogue causes introspection into one’s own position. Debate causes critique of the other’s position.
  7. Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions. Debate defends one’s own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions.
  8. Dialogue creates an open- minded attitude – an openness to being wrong and an openness to change. Debate creates a closed- minded attitude, a determination to be right.
  9. Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one’s beliefs and assumptions. Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs.
  10. In dialogue one searches for basic agreements. In debate one searches for differences.
  11. Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person/s and seeks neither to alienate nor to offend. Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person.
  12. Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution. Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it.

Toward eupan ~


~ marty alan michelson, ph.d.


Developed  from Bohm, 1996, by Frank Boulton and excerpted here from Contemporary Conflict  Resolution: The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts.  Third Edition Oliver Ramsbotham,  Tom Woodhouse and Hugh Miall.

Posted via email from Eupan Global Initiative