Reconciliation

by Dennis Green

I have about a half dozen shirts made by “English Laundry,” made in Great Britain, and very well-tailored, very stylish. They feature decorated lapels and sleeve cuffs, all made of heavy pure cotton, and several of them are dedicated to the Independence of India from Great Britain, and have removable collars, leaving a kind of Gandhi clerical look.

On the back is the date: “1947 India” and I am reminded of that event, having studied it in my second grade class, reading about it in “Current Events,” a little weekly newsletter circulated in my school. The culmination of Gandhi’s campaign of “Civil Disobedience” and “Peaceful Non-Violent Protests,” for a free and independent India the whole world had high expectations.

But almost immediately, the large Muslim population and majority Hindus were at each other’s throats. Soon, Pakistan had broken away from India, in two large east and west blocks, startling cartographers everywhere, I am sure. And many territories disputed then remain so today.

Gandhi’s plans for reconciliation between the Hindu majority, most of whom opposed and worked against British colonial occupation, and the Pakistanis, Muslim and many of whom had tended to support British rule, were thwarted of course by his assassination. And any attempts at reconciliation since have been short-lived.

We forget that after our own Revolution, we as a people underwent a very difficult reconciliation between British sympathizers and Revolutionary Colonialists. In some instances, the property of Loyalists was seized, in some instances they were driven from their positions in commerce or government. The bitterness between the two populations lingered on for many years, and inspired many infamous side effects, including disputes over just how “Federalist” the new nation should be.

In more recent times, the most successful reconciliation on record is that achieved by Nelson Mandela in the newly liberated nation of South Africa following their defeat of apartheid. Considering the horrors of the rebellion and civil war there — the “necklacing of captives with burning tires — such a reconciliation was a major feat indeed.

In more recent times, U.S. interference in the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan have left divisions within those tribal countries even worse than those existing there before. At least Saddam Hussein kept a sort of thuggish peace between minority and majority sects, and the Taliban, no matter how ruthless, kept an uneasy peace in Afghanistan. Since our invasions, their differences have become irreconcilable.

Obviously, reconciliation is a tricky and a demanding business. We see from the success of the World Cup Games in Johannesburg just how united the people of South Africa are today, and what an impressive achievement Mandela’s truly is.

On the home front, I’m witnessing in microcosm just how difficult such a turn of affairs can be. Proponents of SunCal’s development of Alameda Point, who lost 85%/15% in March, and proponents of the school parcel tax initiative, defeated last month, not only persist in attempting to achieve their original goals, but bitterly criticize the victors. I have never seen this community so divided.

Now a feud between the Interim City Manager, Anne Marie Gallant, and City Councilwoman Lena Tam, threatens to worsen the divide. The local newspapers, enriched by consistent advertising placements by SunCal, have chosen to side with Tam and SunCal. Outspoken critics of SunCal put their faith in Gallant.

Because I played a major role in the defeat of both Measure B, (SunCal), and Measure E, (schools), I want to take an influential role in reconciliation. Alamedans for Fair Taxation, (AFT), the group that opposed the last school parcel tax, is busy designing a new parcel tax proposal for the schools that opponents of Measure E can support.

Such a new proposal may bring in enough revenue to cancel the $7 million deficit faced currently by the schools, but I would prefer to see more cuts in spending first. It will also have to be BULLET PROOF, that is, so fair that no one can disagree with its premise, that it will spread the new tax burden fairly and equitably. None of these regressive, split-roll, seniors exempted tricks!

We shall see if reconciliation is possible, and whether those who claim they want to “Save the Schools” are willing to pay their fair share of the costs for doing so.

©21010 Dennis Green