From: dem@engin.umich.edu (Darryle E Merlette)
Subject: Re: Rage, ranting and race
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 10:49:43 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa

In article <BD.92Nov12091027@fluent.UUCP>
bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:

>Recent polls show that 70% of the people think the country is
>on the wrong track.  That sounds like a fundamental
>disagreemnt with the way the country is working.

Yes, but I'd like to know what question(s) were asked to determine this.
If people were asked flat out "Do you think this country is on the right
track?" or something similar, then this result is no surprise. On the other
hand, I don't think the conclusion would be the same if the question posed
was, for example, "Do you approve of the use of redlining and gerrymandering
to preserve your neighborhood?" 

>Talking about "whites as a group" doesn't offend me, it just
>makes me want to point out that it's as meaningless as talking 
>about the feelings of "blacks as a grouip".  Easy to do, but
>essentially meaningless.

IMHO, it is not meaningless at all. "As a group" simply recognizes that
what set theorists call cardinality has correspondence in the ideas,
opinions, and actions of groups of people.

>I think it's a strategic error to talk about "racism" as one giant
>monolithic thing.  I suggest it's more helpful to look at individual
>results of "racsim" and attack them individually.

It's been my experience that there is no such thing as an *isolated* case
of racism (ie., acts of racism cannot be properly addressed and understood
when lifted out of the context of society). Therefore, addressing individual
cases is akin to doctors who treat each individual symptom instead of the
whole disease.

>A white woman crossing the street to avoid three black males that she
>deems threatening is "racism", but it doesn't have the same cause
>as the racism of a Jesse Helms ad showing a white worker balling up
>a job rejection letter at the same time a voiceover talks about
>affirmative action.

They may not have the same cause, but they are arguably part of the same
effect. Actually, the distinction between cause and effect is extremely
blurred in what has become a vicious cycle of racism.

>The murder rate of ghetto youths is far too high, but it is not
>helpful in seeking solutions to say that "racism" is the cause.
>Lack of jobs and lack of hope is the reason.  Drugs are the
>reason.  "Racism" might be used to describe the lack of interest
>that lets this situation arise, but it does nothing to help alleviate
>the situation:  in fact it turns people off by offending them or making
>them defensive.

It may sound harsh, but if people are offended by what may very well
be the truth, then that's *their problem*. It's just unfortunate that
*their problem* becomes *our problem* in a society where they have
control. (Sorry for the "us" vs. "them" terminology, but its the best
way to communicate this particular point). If Blacks had the same
control over their own lives that whites have over their own lives
(and Black lives) then and only then could it truly be said that racism
doesn't matter.

	Darryle
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american