The speakers are highlighting that groups engaged in violence or terrorist acts often do so because of their own experiences of repression and their need for legitimacy. Yet the Supreme Court in Holder seemed particularly concerned about the very notion of granting legitimacy to these groups. How can conflict resolution practitioners address this tension? Have there been efforts to negotiate these seemingly competing interests (needing legitimacy and not wanting to grant legitimacy)?
A few panelists have called for sensitization of our leaders and the public more generally about the non-monolithic nature of FTOs. This seems especially challenging considering the vitriolic conversation perpetuated by the media that plays up fear and nationalism. What would educational efforts look like realistically?
Lara
March 25, 2011 @ 10:12 pm
The speakers are highlighting that groups engaged in violence or terrorist acts often do so because of their own experiences of repression and their need for legitimacy. Yet the Supreme Court in Holder seemed particularly concerned about the very notion of granting legitimacy to these groups. How can conflict resolution practitioners address this tension? Have there been efforts to negotiate these seemingly competing interests (needing legitimacy and not wanting to grant legitimacy)?
Carrie
March 25, 2011 @ 10:48 pm
A few panelists have called for sensitization of our leaders and the public more generally about the non-monolithic nature of FTOs. This seems especially challenging considering the vitriolic conversation perpetuated by the media that plays up fear and nationalism. What would educational efforts look like realistically?