On Tuesday, April 18, Brian wrote:

Hi Jeanne I was doing some thinking about the question you emailed me earlier this week.  (What role will the individual seeking authenticity and integrity have on global effects at peacemaking?) My response to this is that an individual who is using Good Faith and Forgiveness as their point of view for the world's problems will be able to handle all the negatives that are taking place today.  For example if a Jewish man or woman were to take a trip to Germany to view the site of where the Holocaust took place and see where their ancestors may have passed away, do they feel very hatred to all people of German descent or do they try to forgive the hateful acts of people who were responsible for the mass killings during World War II?  Many Jewish people have still not forgotten how they were treated during the war as well many other children or grandchildren of the holocaust victims have forgiven the German people for their act of deviance and moved on with their lives.  This could be the same for individuals of Japanese descent.  Many Japanese could still be upset that after the bombing of Pearl Harbor that the United States would retaliate and drop a bomb on the city of Hiroshima.  The point I am trying to get across is that the world as a whole has been sort of encouraged to look past experiences or events that have taken place and look for new solutions to prevent terrible disasters like a World War to happen again.  I believe an example of this could be the organization of the United Nations Council.  The UN was organized to prevent the rise of an anarchy government or nation that could threaten smaller countries to join them or be demolished. 

Sort of getting back to the original response, an individual can take two attitudes in contemplating on what he or she can do for the global cause.  One is the optimistic theory, which welcomes change and looks for new ideas to change old solutions that could be growing old.  The second attitude is pessimistic theory which is viewed as looking at the negative side of problems and only seeing that the problem could get worse or that there could be no solution in the future.

Brian Coffman
UWP
Peacemaking Theory Paper
coffm000@uwp.edu

On Wednesday, 12 April 2000, Brian W. Coffman wrote:

Hi Jeanne, Professor Takata has told me that I should email you a few paragraphs from my paper for the WSSA meetings.  I am writing my paper on Peacemaking methods of sociology.  My name is Brian Coffman and I am a junior at Wisconsin-Parkside.  I am majoring in Sociology and Criminal Justice.  I was just wondering if you had anyone at Donminquez-Hills working on the same paper as I am.  Here is an introduction paragraph to my paper:

Violent times have descended over the world in the past years. Issues have arisen that have had direct effects on the lives of citizens of the United States.  Some of the issues that have contributed to this high-pressured arms race have been the Bosnia and Kosovo civil war, international terrorism, and the rise of new foreign governments and their military.  The indirect effect of these international problems on the way of life in the U.S. has been a more agressive crime rate with the issue of gun control becoming a major political debate.  Also, the educational system in the U.S. has suffered through these times of increased danger.  With the unbelievable rise in the number of school shootings and bombings in the U.S., the government has been put into a position where action must be taken to combat the problem.  It is my opinion that the U.S. government needs to find a better way to combat crimes taking place in the nation's schools by looking for a different peacemaking method to solve the problem.  In the next paragraphs I am going to discuss a couple of the pressing issues taking place in the world and the U.S. and show how they relate to each other.  I also am going to show multiple peacemaking methods and solutions using particularly the teachings of Habermas to possibly combat and solve the controversies that have been mentioned.

Later today I am going to send a few other paragraphs that accompany my paper for the wssa meetings. 

Sincerely

Brian Coffman
CC: Prof. Takata

On Sunday, April 16, jeanne answered:

Hi, Brian. I'm trying to post all our correspondence so that the research teams can help with the texts. Michael Planck, at CSUDH, has been working on this theme since his Sociology of Law class last semester. I'll be getting his material up this weekend, too. jeanne

On Friday, 14 April 2000, Brian Coffman wrote:

In the past decade the United States has seen an aggressive increase of violence that has taken place in our schools and places of work.  A major factor in this turmoil has been gun control debate.  The ease with which children re seen to get their hands on guns today is forcing the United States government to take action to regain the confidence of the American public. 

A few examples of the violence taking place in our nations schools have been the shooting of a 6-year-old child in Flint, Michigan this past February.  A first grade boy shot and killed a girl classmate at the Beecher Community School District over an argument that escalated during a playground fight.  The gun belonged to the guardian of the boy and he will probably be charged with criminal negligence.  A question for this story is how could a first grade child be able to get his hands on a loaded gun and shoot someone? 

Another national story that recieved major news coverage was the killings that took place at Columbine High School in Boulder, Colorado.....

Brian Coffman UWP Peacemaking Theory Paper coffm000@uwp.edu

On Sunday, April 16, jeanne answered:

Hi, Brian. I'm trying to post all our correspondence so that the research teams can help with the texts. Michael Planck, at CSUDH, has been working on this theme since his Sociology of Law class last semester. I'll be getting his material up this weekend, too. jeanne

On Friday, April 14, Brian wrote:

In the teachings of Jurgen Habermas he has shown that to arrive at a consensus on public discourse there must be laws that would provide individuals the opportunity to live in complete togetherness using Forgiveness and Good Faith.  Forgiveness is necessary for a society to survive in a changing world.  Forgiveness can be defined as looking past bad indiscretions or acts that might have taken place and viewing the picture as a whole.  Good Faith is also a necessary ingredient when Forgiveness is applied to previous acts.  People must have Good Faith to believe that people will be true to what they say and respect laws that have been agreed upon. 

An example of Good Faith can be found in two court cases that I have researched.  The first case has to do with the Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc. (1997) which had to deal with the breach-of-conduct claim and the breach of implied covenant of good faith.  The plaintiff agreed to operate a clam fishing business and the defendant would buy the clams harvested by the plaintiffs boats.  During the time under contract the defendant did not buy the required amount of clams from the plaintiff and eventually terminated the contract.  The only problem was that the contract the two parties had signed agreed to a 90-day written notice of cancellation of all services and the defendant clearly broke the contract let alone other wrongful acts of conduct.  The district court of New Jersey ruled that the defendant had broken the obligation to perform in good faith that exists in all contracts even in those that allow the contract to be voided because of any reason by both parties. (Sarah Price, Senior Attorney www.nlrg.com) 

The interpretation of the example of the court case has to do with how good faith and forgiveness is recognized by the courts of the United States as being a written law that everyone must follow. Brian Coffman UWP Peacemaking Theory coffm000@uwp.edu

On Sunday, April 16, jeanne wrote:

Brian, Where on the NLRG site did you find the case? Would you give the site, so others can read it also?

I'm glad you brought this back to Habermas. I think that's a good idea. And you have focused on two concepts we have discussed as essential to the public discourse Habermas suggests as the means to legitimacy and successful democracy: fogiveness and good faith. I'd like to focus more on the definitions.

Forgiveness would seem to be essential to giving a good faith hearing to all validity claims. One must forgive past indiscretions, as you say, in order to listen in good faith to those who bring the claims. But that is far easier for us to define than it is for those to have been harmed to do. What about L. Gregory Jones' concept of "cheap forgiveness?" How, in the system you envision, does the "victim" receive assurance that the past aggressor has recoginized his/her aggression, and will come in good faith to this renewed public discourse?

Also, in defining good faith for this presentation, don't you think we ought to reiterate that a good faith hearing claim does not require that we agree with the claim being made, only that we listen openly and make a genuine effort to understand the claimant's perspective? Even though Habermas does give great emphasis to consensus, is it not possible that instead of consensus, we might seek to agree to disagree? (I believe it's Jonathan Lear that raises this point in Love and Its Place in Nature. Will try to find it.)

Finally, I don't mean to quibble, but you said "two court cases." Is there another you have reviewed besides Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc. (1997)?

Good work. jeanne

On Friday, April 14, Brian wrote:

Part of paper dealing with Ethnic Conflict taking place:

The definition of ethnic conflict is the violence between two groups within a state that has the question of ethnicity at its core.  In our changing world the population of every country is becoming more and more mixed with different cultures and ethnic groups.  Ethnic conflict has become the greatest threat to the stability and security of the modern world.  In the years of Adolph Hitler's span of dominance in Germany and the East he spoke of having one great race the "Aryan Race".  This sparked the beginning of World War II and the death of many ethnic individuals who resided in Europe.  No one gorup of ethnic people were mercifully slaughtered more than the Jewish people.  With the introduction of the concentration camps at Aushwitz and Birkenau as the killing machines.

 2) Genetic Cleansing

3) Bosnia war

Brian Coffman
UWP Peacemaking Theory
coffm000@uwp.edu

On Sunday, 16 April 2000, Susan wrote:

finally had a chance to read all the materials. one thing i did was to go back and review the original abstract. you might want to do the same. the original focus is closer to home on how the Dear Habermas site is a virtual academic community constructing a peacemaking approach/identity.

what you  have presented so far is much more global than that, which is okay. it certainly provides the social context in which the need for peacemaking is crucial.

can't wait to read the piece on peacemaking methods and solutions. hope you plan to email that to jeanne and me this week.

susan