Essay on Fuller

[Kamoun]

I will be submitting the following essay for a course I am attending entitiled Conflict, Mediation and Dialogue.

The requirements are as follows.

WE WILL MAKE AN ANTHOLOGY ABOUT PEOPLE CONTRIBUTING TO PEACE AND DIALOGUE.



All participants shall write 2-3 pages (around 1000 words) about one person who has contributed to peace building and dialogue. Together these articles will make an anthology. You may write about a person who has been working in practice or one who mainly has been concerned with theory. You should choose some literature as reference which will be included in your literature list for the course. It is OK that more than one participant writes about the same person, but we will encourage you to choose different persons to ensure the diversity of the anthology.

The main questions we want you to respond to are:

1. What about this person inspires you most?

2. What is the essential and specific message from this person about peace building and dialogue?

3. What are her/his basic values in peace building? What drives him/her?


Neely Fuller hasn’t had much formal education. He has, however, been deeply affected by his experiences with racism in the United States. This led him to wanting to find solutions to the “race-problem”, and especially the conflicts that people find themselves involved in because of it. Mr. Fuller started his journey in the 1960’s for a solution to the “race-problem” by thinking about the words that were being used to describe the conflicts surrounding the topics around racism. He came to the determination that many of these words had confusing meanings attached to them, and that this confusion retarded any attempt to find a solution. He came to what he considered a startling revelation - that people who use words can create their own definitions for those words. His work has essentially been about the understanding of conflicts and their resolution through the use of words ( dialogue). His approach has inspired me to consider the potential for the building of peace - from general conflicts and not just those related to race.
What inspires me most about Neely Fuller is his emphasis on the need for dialogue to be grounded in a logical structure. This structure takes its form in the use of concise language and in the active use of definitions. He believes that the use of such techniques would ultimately prove useful for resolving conflicts. He emphasizes the use of precision in the language that people use whilst talking to one another during conflicts, especially those centered around race. He suggests that people make a concerted attempt to clearly express their thoughts, using concise language that minimizes confusion. I have observed that in his interviews and lectures, he sticks to his own philosophy whilst engaging in dialogue with others on the topic of racism. He quickly asks for the definitions of any words used for which the meaning is not clear, and then together examining whether the definitions actually fit the way the words are actually being used. If it can be found that they do not, Fuller together with his dialogue partner, suggests alternate words and/or definitions. In this manner, he constantly practices and also refines his philosophy. Fuller’s motivating drive, he says, is the quest for the establishment of Justice on planet earth. Justice as defined by Fuller is “balance between people”. He thinks that people should be given tools that would empower them to act individually, if they choose to do so, to promote Justice. He also believes that this is the only reason for someone to justify their existence. Fuller’s commitment to a concept of justice in conflict resolution, his development of an unique philosophy and his own active adherence to it serves as a source of inspiration for me.
Foremost among Fuller’s contributions to the techniques of dialogue and its potential for peace-building is this strong emphasis on precision-speaking. Without precision, communication between people can be so often a ripe source of conflict. When people feel as they are not being understood or suspect that they are being misled, their frustration makes them lash out and conflict begins. To reduce conflict, Fuller says, people need to understand their own responsibility whilst engaging in dialogue. This responsibility involves speaking “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. It is very important not to knowingly mislead the person you are speaking to. It is also very important not to allow yourself to be misled. This is accomplished by scientifically sticking to the facts when you speak and not including any irrelevant information not important to the discussion. Without a commitment to the truth, there can be no meaningful gains to be achieved from dialogue.
Definitions are also very important. One example of a definitions that Fuller uses are Justice= balance between people. Peace=Justice + Truth, where Truth = that which is. On first glance, these definitions sound quite simplistic and circular.(Or so says the smiling, beautiful Hilde) But are they? At the very least, the careful consideration of the definitions of words used whilst communicating can be shown to be of real importance. Without mutual understanding of a particular definition, confusion can quickly arise in a discussion where definitions relating to issues have not been fully decided upon.
Fuller has entitled his philosophy the “United Independent Compensatory System/Code/Concept”. In peace-building, he feels that persons should be united in their quest for the elimination of racism but work independently. This means that they make their own choices as to what they should or should not do. The Codebook, as he describes his work, serves as a compilation of suggestions from which persons may choose to implement any time they wish. More importantly, Fuller encourages persons to make up their own suggestions independently – to create their own code of conduct.
What are the values of Fuller ? The critical thing that appears to drive him is his wish to see what he sees as widespread injustice in the world replaced with Justice. Admittedly, such a thing has not been achieved in the past, and those who have tried to establish Justice have failed, say Fuller. Another key value for Fuller seems to be the use of logical thinking to obtain Justice. This is apparent as the emphasis on precise language reveal is central in his philosophy. The vehicle for this use of logical thinking to obtain Justice is individual responsibility. Each person is individually responsible for the production of Justice, using their own intelligence to make decisions on what behaviors they should implement to produce Justice in their own lives.

The common man can contribute to the field of peace research and dialogue. Fuller hasn’t got a university degree, but has been able to uncover what I believe are key essentials relating to meaningful, constructive dialogue.

[Kamou]

...my essay was not complete. Here is the remainder.

Foremost among Fuller’s contributions to the techniques of dialogue and its potential for peace-building is this strong emphasis on precision-speaking. Without precision, communication between people can be so often a ripe source of conflict. When people feel as they are not being understood or suspect that they are being misled, their frustration makes them lash out and conflict begins. To reduce conflict, Fuller says, people need to understand their own responsibility whilst engaging in dialogue. This responsibility involves speaking “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. It is very important not to knowingly mislead the person you are speaking to. It is also very important not to allow yourself to be misled. This is accomplished by scientifically sticking to the facts when you speak and not including any irrelevant information not important to the discussion. Without a commitment to the truth, there can be no meaningful gains to be achieved from dialogue.
Definitions are also very important. One example of a definitions that Fuller uses are Justice= balance between people. Peace=Justice + Truth, where Truth = that which is. On first glance, these definitions sound quite simplistic and circular.(Or so says the smiling, beautiful Hilde) But are they? At the very least, the careful consideration of the definitions of words used whilst communicating can be shown to be of real importance. Without mutual understanding of a particular definition, confusion can quickly arise in a discussion where definitions relating to issues have not been fully decided upon.
Fuller has entitled his philosophy the “United Independent Compensatory System/Code/Concept”. In peace-building, he feels that persons should be united in their quest for the elimination of racism but work independently. This means that they make their own choices as to what they should or should not do. The Codebook, as he describes his work, serves as a compilation of suggestions from which persons may choose to implement any time they wish. More importantly, Fuller encourages persons to make up their own suggestions independently – to create their own code of conduct.
What are the values of Fuller ? The critical thing that appears to drive him is his wish to see what he sees as widespread injustice in the world replaced with Justice. Admittedly, such a thing has not been achieved in the past, and those who have tried to establish Justice have failed, say Fuller. Another key value for Fuller seems to be the use of logical thinking to obtain Justice. This is apparent as the emphasis on precise language reveal is central in his philosophy. The vehicle for this use of logical thinking to obtain Justice is individual responsibility. Each person is individually responsible for the production of Justice, using their own intelligence to make decisions on what behaviors they should implement to produce Justice in their own lives.

The common man can contribute to the field of peace research and dialogue. Fuller hasn’t got a university degree, but has been able to uncover what I believe are key essentials relating to meaningful, constructive dialogue.



REFERENCES
Fuller, Neely. The United Independent Compensatory Code/System/Concept., Copyrighted, Library of Congress, 1969

[Josh]

Kamou,

Who designed the 3 requirements?

Especially the first one?



1. What about this person inspires you most?

2. What is the essential and specific message from this person about peace building and dialogue?

3. What are her/his basic values in peace building? What drives him/her?


I think one of the required questions should be:

What is this person DOING that is effective at creating peace. and HOW is he doing it.

I don't know about you guys but Im smelling a "nigger project".

Peace and "dialogue"?...why not peace and Justice? Why did they include the word "dialogue"?


"What about this person inspires you most"

Don't let White people get you caught up in a "cult of personality", follow the logic not the nigger.

You gotta watch out for these academic projects because they are often designed to serve as showcases for niggers to use all the big words that White people have taught them without TEACHING BLACK PEOPLE THE MECHANICS OF WHAT THEY SHOULD DO TO REPLACE WHITE SUPREMACY WITH JUSTICE.

If this is a presentation event, you will hafta use it to do just that. You will hafta be crafty and creative in finding ways to demonstrate the utility of counter racism code to other Black people.

Specifically, WHAT THEY SHOULD DO

and

WHAT THEY SHOULD SAY.

Figure out a way to get into the mechanics of counter racism code.

In reviewing your essay I didn't see the terms "White people" or "White supremacy".

You gonna write an essay on Neely Fuller and leave out those two terms?

Come on man, you know you can't do that.

Ignore that little White man that we all carry around in our heads. Do what I do; write this essay as if you are on deathrow and this is the last thing you will write before you get executed at 7 am.

When counter racism code is pure, White people usually have one response:

SILENCE

(or they go home and watch a John Wayne movie)

Resist the urge to worry about whether White people will be offended.

To sum up, your essay as written should get you a good grade. But you hafta ask your self what your ultimate purpose on this planet is; to get a good grade or replace White supremacy with Justice.

When code is pure, you can actually do both at the same time.

Thats what White people are able to do. Practice racism and get a good grade on it...AT THE SAME TIME.

In closing, remember, these are only suggestions.

Josh

[Kamou]

Nigga, i'm trying to tell you - I'm scared!

I know that all those cats that they got up in the oslo peace institute ain't do jack for the people in iraq right now, or for the peeps chocking on some sars shit. That's why I wrote on the FULLer and not on the MANDela.

YES. This is a nigga project for me/ sophistication project for the white supremacists in this course.

I definately like the sugeestions you made about DOING.
So instead of why he inspires me: what is he DOING.

Dialouge: That is the term we using to describe the exchange of views. it kinda close to fuller's exchange on views.
I now like "Dialogue towards Justice"

about leaving out the critical words - white supremacy --> look above.
I am obviously going to have to explain this phenonmenon and the reason for the strength inplicit in those words , and then be prepared to take a lot of flack.

Nigga

I wrote

a 3 page essay on Dr. Welsing. Tight.Academic definitions, hit wid einsteins statement on the ullitimate purpose for science ( to explain reality) intro-ed with what she says about fuller saying their is no other supremacy ther than white supremacy. I gave it the members in my group and to the course leader who composed this requirement. He was fascinated at first - but the following morning he told me he had read it. I told him thtat I was SCARED to write it. (I had been saying that I would write about Frodo in the Lord of the Rings). HE said - "You should have been"

nigga

NOONE in my group (white and non-white) responded or gaveme feed-back , as they were supposed to .
Do you hear me?

So I'mma trying toput together an essay that won't offend anyoone , but will actually do some good for somebody. Instead of rattling off like everybody about somebody who tried to be a nice person and tried to convince others to be a nice person.

I actually laughed to myself when i sawwhat you said

"You gonna write an essay on Neely Fuller and leave out those two terms?

Come on man, you know you can't do that. "

I know, I know but I'm scared.

I'll think about your death row suggestion.

I know one thing- I am not as good as Fuller and Welsing are in describing their ideas. I need help. Thanks for the suggestions.

[GMAN]

Doctor Welsing says: "Get out of school first." she said that at during one of her class sessions a few months ago. It was in response to a student in your situation. Basically, it aint worth it to reveal yourself or blow your cover in school. Welsing was a college professor, so I would take her word over anyone's. DO NOT BECOME SO INVOLVED IN COUNTERING RACISM THAT YOU MAKE RECKLESS MISTAKES or you will fail before you start. Trust me on that. I'm doing it right now.

So, go the "SAFE" route. Safe = Not seriously offending white people. I know that is messed up, but you do what you gotta do. As Ice Cube said in Higher Learning, "You behind enemy lines" So do not take foolish risks.

Follow Josh's advice and work the code into your presentation without comprimising it. But use the word Racism instead of White Supremacy.
That will hurt briefly, but not a badly as being tagged as THE counter racist. Move with wisdom and you will no longer need to fear anything.

[Kamou]

That is an answer I'm most comfortable with.

I don't know how sophisticated I am to do that, though.

I will try.

Thanks for your suggestions and thanks to the webmaster for providing this excellent medium for discussion.

Kamou

[Edward Williams]

I think it will help if people give the exact words to use and the exact words not to use, as suggestions, and briefly explain the utility of their suggestion.

This way others can decide if they want to use the words or not, based on any given circumstance. Please be specific in your suggestion.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?

[GMAN]

For the record,

V_God's suggested method is the most correct. Being that the mission
is to reveal truth to those confused (non-white) people in your class.

So, I recommend that you follow V_God's suggestions and check out
the post "Racism=White Supremacy" in this section.

Good luck