We should divest from fossil fuels. But we need energy and can’t combat climate change unless we have alternative sources of energy. So much of the money obtained from divestment should go to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency stocks.
1 Like
I hear you when you say “unproductive.” But I will say that “white backlash” and “pausing for further analysis” look the same. They may both prolong justice work because of the need for perfection. I believe the implication of “white backlash” comes from the idea that the original poster did not take the time to follow the directions of the amendment process, did not keep the spirit of the proposal, and was still given the chance to have it corrected when the authors of the Business Resolution had to be so precise.
White Backlash isn’t some made up thing that can be thrown around to dismiss discussion, it is a real tactic used to shut down progress, especially when dealing with supporting Black, Indigenous, and Other People of Color.
I don’t want to assume that your comment is an attack either, but possibly a misunderstanding of the history of non-POCs enacting anger or disinterest in the lives and livelihood of POCs.
Hi Everyone! Thank you for being here and being willing to be in community with each other. This is a gentle reminder that we are in relationship with each other through the covenants that we all agree to abide by. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out! - JeKaren
1 Like
Jolly, I also am deeply appreciative of the research and work that went into the resolution. That said, it seems too much too fast. It also appears to give reparations a short shift. I believe that subject needs some concentrated and deep thinking and should not be done fast or in a simplified way. For this reason, I will not vote for it. I really wish we had another option to hold the board more accountable, then it appears we have. That research was so well done, I don’t want to lose it and I want to keep the boards feet to the fire. I’m not sure how to do that, and wish this resolution offered a path.
1 Like
Hi Kalexandera,
The amount of reparations is simply the amount we want to divest. It is this high because instead of divesting, they continued to reinvest in fossil fuels. Can you explain more about the “deep thinking”? This business resolution calls for the board to build a task force to create a plan. There isn’t a timeline in our resolution (outside of divesting immediately). The time the task force puts force to provide reparations would be up to them and the board.
Reparations is also not an end-all, be-all tactic. We need to stop talking about it as if it’s always a one-time thing. Reparations should be as common as pronouns on zoom or land acknowledgements. We should be using it as often as possible in our racial/environmental toolbox.
Antoinette,
It’s not the amount, it’s about all at once, AND no plan. I’m more interested in repairing damage, than in giving money to people. I’d like to see the races getting the money have a say and none of the appears in the resolution.
Warmly
Kathryn
3 Likes
The Investment Committee had 5 years after the 2014 resolution to divest. They finally agreed to do so in March 2023, just 2 months ago and about 4 years late. I did not follow the 2020 and 2021 resolutions as carefully as the proposers of this business resolution, but those seem to have been similarly ignored.
Actions, or lack of actions, have consequences—and unfortunately, that means in this case “too much too fast”, because the time for more measured response went by without action.
The resolution leaves details of reparations to be worked out; given the effort that went into just the divestment portion and the trust that the proposers have in UU folks generally (impressive, from my viewpoint, given the history of nonaction after 2014), and their not feeling that they need to control that future set of actions, I don’t see the need to require everything to be spelled out in this single resolution.
I think that it is important to take this leap for 2 main reasons, actually 3:
-
to hold the Investment Committee accountable to doing the actual work that we the delegates in 2014, 2020, and 2021 told them to do,
-
to support the young adults who are looking into a scary climate future and asking us not to kick the can donw the road again, but take action NOW,
-
because fossil-fuel divestment, including from financiers of new fossil fuel projects, is the right thing to do (as we acknowledged in 2014, 2020, and 2021).
4 Likes
I was on the mini session for the amendment 3 and I don’t believe all delegates understood that if you were voting YES to #3, that meant NO to reparations. I think some were confused and this amendment should have passed.
1 Like
I was there and it was stated a couple of times what the vote meant.
1 Like
Denigrating UUs who are operating within democratic norms isn’t great
To @jolly or anyone else with knowledge of this resolution…
If the UUA gave ~$14 million to Indigenous and ADOS communities as reparations, where approximately would that leave us. Would that mean, the UUA is square, and we’re done making reparations? Or would it mean we’re about half-way to meeting our moral obligation and settling our moral debt? Or 10% of the way?
1 Like
That amount represents our Common Endowment Fund fossil-fuel investments; is that all we have ever done that requires repair? Doubtful at best.
It resolves this particular issue, to the extent it can be, but I don’t see reparations as one big UU scorecard that we are working to complete.