Here’s what happened as I recall it.
Sukie Rice

In April 1976 Linda LeClair (the AFSC staff person in Concord) called  and asked me to come up and do a n-v workshop with some folks who were  considering some actions against building the S. nukes. I did so and we had an evening of discussion and role-playing at a neat vegetarian restaurant.

 There were people there who were questioning whether or not the actions should be purely non-violent in action or philosophy. So we role-played a bunch with people being the demonstrators, some as police and some as the general public watching it on TV. The role-plays proved how essential n-v is to get the message across to not alienate the NH public. Read the rest of this entry »

Non-Violence and Consensus

By Wally Nelson

Non-violence is the constant awareness of the dignity and humanity of oneself and others. It seeks truth and justice. It renounces violence both in method and attitude. Non-violence is a courageous acceptance of active love and goodwill as the instrument with which to overcome evil and transform both oneself and others. It is the willingness to undergo suffering rather than inflict it. It excludes retaliation and flight.

When we speak of consensus, we are not referring to the literal meaning of the word. Literally, consensus is understood as a noun we use when a group comes to a unanimous decision. Consensus as we use it implies much more than the final state of being in agreement. It is a way of relating to each other in a non-violent, respectful and caring fashion. It is more than an end result; it is a process. And in the process of consensus, it is not unanimity we seek, but unity in which we can all contribute in our own way. Hallock Hoffman in The Civilization of the Dialogue explains: “Unity… is more complex. It does not necessarily reflect total agreement on the issue under discussion. It incorporates a perception of the relationship of the members to each other and to the issue.”

Clam Structure and Support City

by Susanae Hoch Glovacki                  

 Journalists at the time described the “military efficiency” and “discipline” of the 1977 Clamshell Alliance occupation. What they were seeing was the power of a nonviolent movement, of people committed not only to a cause, but to each other, to communication with “opponents,” and to the community created from that conflict. People came to Seabrook to voice their concern about nuclear power, and to do it so they could be heard. The intentions of the Clamshell were not to gain attention through violent confrontation; violence destroys communication with those we hope to bring to our side. There were no secrets. All the plans for the occupation were given to the police, National Guard, Public Service Company, and the public before the event. Read the rest of this entry »

FRANCES CROWE’S STORIES

As told to Sharon Tracy

EARLY DAYS

My husband Tom, a radiologist, was a founding member of Physicians for Social responsibility in this area. Back in the 60s we were working to stop the testing of nuclear weapons. Read the rest of this entry »

Western Massachusetts Region Clamshell, Trainers, and MNS

By Diane Clancy

What do liberation, process and a safe environment all have in common? For me, they all converged in Clamshell Alliance.

In Western Mass some of us had been meeting regularly in Greenfield to stop nukes and support alternative energy before Clamshell got started. We had already fought and stopped the proposed Montague Plains nuke. A few of us had also started developing MNS (Movement for a New Society) regionally in New England as an offshoot of the MNS community in Philadelphia and elsewhere. Some of us were also very active in liberation struggles and advocating for consciousness around freedom issues. Clamshell became a convergence point for all three of these movements.

Read the rest of this entry »