Fairnessworks focuses on local, interpersonal peacemaking efforts, so I suppose it’s fair for me to ask my subscribers to log on and vote for Global Village School, located in my home region of Decatur, Georgia, to enable them to receive a small grant for its music program.
The local is the global at Global Village School in Decatur, Georgia.
Elise Witt, a music teacher at the school, is applying for a special grant of $2500 from GOOD. The grant is specifically for arts-related projects that make a difference. It would be their kick-off money for the Global Village School’s Music Program/One Voice Chorus next year. But the winner is chosen by having the most public votes.
So, I am asking you to please go to this website and cast your vote. Naturally, I would like for you to vote for Global Village School, but when you arrive at the site you will find many appealing proposals, and you may decide to vote for a program other than my pet project. That’s OK, just vote and spread the word about the GOOD Foundation.
Global Village School is for teenage refugee girls from Afghanistan, Burma, Burundi, Ethiopia, Iraq, Sudan, and Central African Republic. The grantseekers want to create a chorus to become the public face of the school and to leverage further funding for this unique institution that serves girls whose formal education has been interrupted by war and refugee camp experiences.
Music is an important part of the GVS innovative curriculum, and the One Voice Chorus will reflect both the diversity of the student population and the effectiveness of music as a tool for learning English as well as Science, Math, and Social Studies.
Recovery from the effects of war-ravaged regions depends on programs such as those offered at Global Village School in Decatur, GA. Peacemaking begins in small local communities such as these. Please visit the GOOD website and consider voting for their grant proposal.
If you vote online, please share your choice here, using the COMMENTS section.
http://makemusic.maker.good.is/projects/GVSOneVoiceChorus
I thought this post would be about the original Global Village School (www.globalvillageschool.org). It’s a shame that the school itself and many of the people associated with it haven’t been careful about distinguishing their school as THE Global Village School or TGVS. As far as I can tell, TGVS is doing great work, it’s a shame they chose the name of another more established school that is also doing great peace work. Very confusing.
A friend from my high school years, Jeff Daiell, sent me a comment, which I’d like to share here. Thanks, Jeff.
————————————————–
Toward A Quaker Economic Policy
America has several denominations that are pacifistic, or nearly so, but the one most well-known for that aspect of their creed is the Quakers.
This refusal to use violence (at least directly, a distinction I’ll clarify in a moment) makes even more inspiring the Quaker participation in The Underground Railroad, because it meant that, were any of the many Quakers who participated in that glorious endeavor ever attacked by slave-hunters, their creed would have prohibited them from defending themselves — and many slave-hunters were little better than mad dogs.
But what is puzzling about some (definitely not all!) Quakers is that they not only countenance, but, in many cases, encourage, force — that is, force used by Government to promote ends they find desirable. Morally/ethically speaking, of course, there is no distinction between coercion and force employed by politicians and the same means used by private citizens. Nor is there any moral/ethical distinction between violating Human Rights for noble goals and engaging in such violations for odious purposes.
To give a concrete example: what moral difference is there among the Barbary Pirates demanding “tribute money” to operate in “their’ territory; the Mafia demanding “protection money” to operate in “its” territory; and The State demanding “sales tax” to operate in “its” territory? Another example: what moral difference is there between a mugger using force to compel a person to finance the mugger’s distaste for work, and a tax collector’s use of force to compel a person to finance a hospital? The philosophy of “the ends justify the means” is the ultimate amorality.
Given that, no Quaker — indeed, no consistent pacifist of any variety — should vote for any candidate willing to abridge Rights, regardless of the ends toward which such abuses are aimed.
That, of course, would disqualify virtually every candidate nominated by either tax-subsidized political party. Although the Democrats and Republicans have agendas which differ somewhat, the method is the same: the initiation of force (as opposed to defensive or retaliatory force) against individuals or groups.
If one forswears using a tactic directly, is it not inconsistent (I will not invoke the term ‘hypocritical’ as many such individuals have never pondered the contradiction) to accept — or worse, vote for — the use of that tactic by politicians and bureaucrats?
For Human Rights,
Jeff Daiell