this was not our only mistake nor our last, its just how it played out to the decimation of the nuclear industry’s plan.

paul

Subject: Re: [JunkMail] Re: TVS web page - Owning our mistakes

Cathy -

To let you know, the CIA is not semi-elitist or even
quasi-elitist, it is elitist and was always meant to
be elitist - and it never really existed.

It was an “affinity group of the mind” that you could
never join, you were “drafted” into it; there was an
identified leader who was called the president and
that could be changed without the notification of the
president by any member, who was not really a member.
There was no consensus decision-making, no adherence
to non-violent civil disobedience and a serious
irreverance for all things Clamshell.

It was a way for those of us who played with it to do
just that - play with some of the innane, insane
moments of the intensity of our lives at the time.

I’m suggesting that you may need to be the new
president, although as the last known president, I
don’t think I am able to resign.

Kristie

Thank you Phil for taking the time to raise the
question (again). Kristie, your honesty in sharing
what you recall of those intense days and your own
revelations of lessons learned are moving. Adam, your
outside-the-Portsmouth-office memories also broaden
the picture.

This is a conversation that begs to continue. IÕve
never agreed with a sense that to delve into the
demise of the Clamshell is treason at worst and
Òscab-pickingÓ at best. ThatÕs why IÕve urged this
question be used in the story-gathering (even before
TVS). ThatÕs why I suggested a round-table on just
this question for the summer gathering (and yes, I
still do think that inviting Tom Rath to participate
would be good; letÕs dig up Peter Thomson as well!).

When the TVS project started we had some preliminary
– and cursory — conversation about how much should
be said about events leading up to June 24, 1978. I
wrote the ÒinadequateÓ paragraph in the website
history in the third or later draft as an attempt to
at least allude (space constrictions and all that) to
the controversy.

The TVS conversation never fully evolved. There were
– and perhaps still are — conflicting feelings about
TVS purpose: is it to inspire and renew anti-nuclear
efforts or is it to tell the Clam story? (Even if
these perhaps should not be contradictory, they
certainly can be when seeking a frank/objective
discussion of the more controversial parts of the
story. Propaganda — which is what moves people –
doesnÕt have to be pretty, but it does have to be
unified in purpose.)

I like Adam opening the question up by remembering the
notion some had that the Clam sowed its own seeds of
destruction in the fall of 1977 by failing to be more
imaginative than to just organize another Seabrook
occupation. Maybe. Others point to the decision-making
process, lack of clear membership criteria, and
complete transparency (did we ever even use that word
back then?) as the seeds of destruction, although as
strong a case can be made that they were the seeds of
strength as well.

Perhaps a broader question than just the handling of
the Rath proposal would be more appropriate: ÒWhy do
you think the Clamshell lost momentum?Ó

As at least some of you already know, I see several
factors contributing to the ClamÕs inability to
adroitly handle the Rath proposal. Certainly, a lack
of cohesiveness among people working most centrally on
the occupation (ie Portsmouth office folks) was one
reason. (Sorry Kristie, but the CIA, with its
semi-elitism, represented this trend; information once
freely shared no longer was.)

Tom Rath was clearly aware the whole thing was a
media/public relations war. The Clam failed to
recognize this, somehow continuing to think it could
control public opinion through the ÒrightnessÓ of its
cause. Tom planned his proposal for 1) maximum media
(announcing it to the media before bringing it to
Clam) and 2) .maximum turmoil in the Clam because he
was fully aware of our cumbersome decision-making.

Our response was agonizing. After agreeing to turn
down the proposal (and my recollection was that this
did go through a full consensus process), we were
left, as Adam notes, with figuring out how to do this.
At this point, I still firmly believe there were ways
to hold the high ground without giving up the
occupation.

Again, as many of you know, Sam Lovejoy and I strongly
felt that we should have accepted on the condition
there be a statewide, binding referendum on the
Seabrook nuke. The state would have to respond by
saying there was no mechanism for such a vote in NH,
which would have been a lot weaker than what they got
to say — ÒGuess those Clams are just hell bent on
breaking the law.Ó This is really where any real
faith in democracy was challenged.

Instead, thanks primarily (as I recall) to the
tremendous fortitude and golden persuasive powers of
Chuck Mathai, and the total exhaustion of most of us
hammering out a response (wasnÕt that an 11 hour
meeting?), we ended up with a laundry list of demands
that, of course, was perceived by the media as a
rejection of the Òvery reasonableÓ Rath proposal.
Chuck was an amazing, brilliant, dedicated and
extremely effective man and, sadly, is no longer with
us. He did not, however, have a deep understanding of
media.

If indeed local support (ie campgrounds) was still
there (if shaky) at that point, it may well have been
the way we initially responded to the Rath proposal,
as reported in the media, that was our demise. It was
after that, according to the folks who were closest to
the campground owners, that they began to withdraw,
forcing, at least as far as those of us closest to the
central organizing were concerned, into doubling-back
and seeing the need to accept the proposal. (Nothing,
of course, is that simple. We knew our strength was in
being perceived as a well-organized, disciplined
organization; not having staging areas threatened
that.)

I guess what IÕm trying to say is accepting or not
accepting the proposal was not the issue. It was HOW
we did it that mattered. Internally, that meant how
much we honored our existing procedure or to what
degree we sought an amendment to that procedure before
proceeding. Externally, it involved — and this can
not be underestimated — how our response was
perceived by the general public.

This is way to long — and not long enough. Please,
letÕs keep talking.

Cathy Wolff, 5-5-07

Thank you for these important comments.

While the web site’ writing can certainly be tuned up here and there to reflect the depth and the breadth of the Movement I , personally see here, in this healthy discussion, the genesis of TVS’ purpose.

You folks made history and TVS’s book/exhibit/workshops will get out in the open so it does not stop at any particular date but grows from it .

Indeed the complexities of growing a new political force, then and now will be reflected in the final writings and photographs sweeping over any one owns interpretation and carrying on the grassroots democratic process to the new generation.

So here is our work, let’s keep walking the track and on… To the Village Square…

No Nukes,

Lionel

PS: Should these comments be developed in our blog - posting them and allowing a potential larger public to comment ? This would have the advantages of congregating all in one place creating archives (versus emails ‘ short lives). ?

Lionel
lionel@clamshell-tvs.org

Actually, I have to admit that I have not read
thoroughly all of the contents of the website and,
when looking at this particular section, I, too, find
it lacking, though I may not be brave enough to offer
a solution.

This format of communication has its limitations,
because when I read Phil’s synopsis, I was surprised
at its characterization. I find myself saying, “I was
there and that’s not what I remeber happening.” I
can’t decipher whether Phil is being provocative in
his statement or if it is more of a lawyer’s “cut to
the chase”. In any case, if this is what you believe
happened Phil, I would offer my recollections as other
“evidence” to consider.

I remember when Tom Rath, then NH AG, presented his
plan to allow Clamshell to enter the nuke site
“legally” for a one-day period. Within a couple of
days of that public pronouncement, there was a meeting
at Diann Garand’s house in Seabrook. There were 20+
people there - local members of Concerned Citizens’
groups, landowners, local organizers, Clamshell staff
and committee members. At this meeting, the local
folks - our “base” - presented all of their concerns
about the Rath proposal and many, if not all, of the
landowners present felt threatened and concerned about
the potential reprecussions of using their land/homes
in a act of civil disobedience when Rath’s offer was
on the table.

I won’t speak for those Clam folks present, but it was
a personal “awakening” of sorts. I don’t think that I
had realized that we had not moved the “base” along
with us in the process of accelerating our actions at
the site. I don’t think I had a good understanding of
the real intensity of the threat people felt from the
“state”. I think I had a naively formed view that had
assumed that once people had made that decision to
make homes/land available in the past, they would
automatically be there in the future. I don’t think
that I did my work to support those folks in a way
that might have impacted this outcome. That is a
personal failing that I feel, that I will admit to in
this process and carry in my life’s work.

I recall attending an emergency CC (Coordinating
Committee) meeting - so I don’t understand Phil’s
comment about no CC involvement. I know we had been
having meeting after meeting for hours on end prior to
that time, but I think I may even facilitated that
emergency meeting. I need help from others here to
recall specifics.

After the conclusion of that meeting when the decision
was made to accept the Rath proposal, pairs of people
were identified to go out throughout New England and
speak with local Clam groups to discuss our dilemma.
I remember being selected to go to Boston - there was
another woman that I went with and I apologize
profusedly for not remembering who that was, but the
thinking was the we had wanted 2 women to go to
counter an overwhelming male presence in Boston. I
remember going to a Boston meeting with a room filled
with all sorts of people and trying to explain what
local people were saying and thinking. I remember
Rudy, Reva, Harvey H. and Maureen (? - not sure if
that was her name) being extremely agitated. I
remember being called an “arm of the State”, in league
with the “pigs”. It was very intense, but I also know
there were people present who understood the dilemma
and expressed solidarity with seacoast folks.

I recall reports back from others who had gone to
Western MA, NH, VT and ME that were similar in that
there was great disappointment, but there was a
solidarity of sorts in wanting to support our local
base. I am not sure where you were in this process
Phil, but I know that we in the seacoast had many
discussions and conversations about the Rath proposal
and its consequences. I don’t specifically recall any
press announcement, though I know there must have been
some - I generally did not participate in this area,
unless drafted, other than perhaps reading/critiquing
releases - so, again, I defer to others with better
recollection.

This all took place in a very condensed, intense
period of time before June 24, so I am sure that there
are things that I am not recollecting accurately. I
welcome anyone else who may have more to add.

As I stated, I do feel a sense of personal failure in
not recogizing the need to have paid more attention to
our base. I do not feel that there was a
circumvention of Clamshell process. It is likely that
folks not in the thick of it felt left out of the
process. But I do feel that those of us there in the
seacoast felt an obligation to the process.

I don’t feel that the June 24 in an of itself
destroyed the participatory essence of Clamshell
democracy. I think that democracy was already seeing
its limits. Consensus decision making was being
manipulated, making it difficult to make decisions,
especially in the time frame presented by the Rath
proposal. The issue of property destruction was
tearing at the edges of our organization. There were
concerns expressed about the “numbers game” and the
exponential growth of the organization. Though we
always suspected it and did not confirm it until
later, infiltration by the “state” was at play, as
well. I have always felt that using June 24 as “the”
reason why Clamshell was not sustained was too
simplistic. It was significant, but not the only
problem with our growing democracy.

I think that an “unintended consequence” of June 24 is
that many, many people who would never have ventured
to Seabrook came to that site, walked on that property
and that the impact of that is something that, for the
movement, was of significance. I think I may be alone
in my interpretation of that, but I saw people there
that day from the local area in particular, who would
never have been able to make the move to occupy that
site, who came out to express their opposition. I
think that had a significant impact locally and
nationally on nuclear power development. Of course,
we cannot say how an occupation would have impacted it
all.

I will admit that I do not have a sophisticated
analysis of what happened. This was my first
experience with a social movement and I was learning
as I went along. It was an exciting and heady time
that found this farmgirl from NH working with a
tremendously creative, committed, and dynamic group of
people, who changed my life and impacted the world all
at the same time. There were mistakes made and
personal failings that I stake claim to, but it does
not take away from the value of the work I have been a
part of all through my life, particularly as a member
of the Clamshell Alliance.

As I said at the start of this response, I don’t have
a specific suggestion as to how we can present this
part of our history, but I also want to say that June
24 was not the “end” of Clam by any means. To say
that would negate some very important work that was
done by those in the early 80’s where we saw waves of
actions where legislators and the wives of judges were
getting arrested, where we saw the impact of those
from out of the NE area who returned to their
communities and built local alliances that created a
national anti-nuke movement.

The intensity of June 24 was real, but I don’t believe
it defines and determines our legacy. Clamshell is so
much more. Those among us who have experience or
knowledge of other social movements can easily point
to similar moments/actions that resulted in
splintering the movement. I hestiate to characterize
it as Phil has, but then I could be reacting
defensively as I was a player in the midst of all of
it. - oops, I just may lose my presidency of the CIA.

I offer this for what it is, though I must admit it
was all sort of neatly tucked away as we humans can so
easily do, so as to not face our failings…

In solidarity,

Kristie
kaconrad3@yahoo.com