From: frankli@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:24:50 GMT

femibyte@athena.mit.edu (Olufemi G Anthony) writes:



>The only way Blacks can gain **respect** in the US of A is economic
>independence. Unfortunately, money talks. There was a time when black
>people were docile and nonviolent, yet  were treated no better than
>dogs.


Let us then perhaps agree that the principle means of success for all
is going to be EDUCATION!!!

At least in America.


>It was not violence that invoked the **initial** fear white people had of
>black people. The stereotypes were developed as a justification for the 
>greatest crime to be committed against blacks, the crime of slavery. In order
>for the white man to resolve the contradiction between his religious
>beliefs and his desire to enslave black people, which was motivated by a desire
>for profit, he had to dehumanize blacks. 


But that was by no means a litmus test for being white. White Americans
took Civil Rights seriously and have made American the best place in
the world for Black people to live. (We still have a few Bigots 
sprinkled in all of the races, but let's ignore...).
And level-headed EDUCATED Black men and women made it work. The violent
Blacks only cause detriment here in America.
 
In America, the answer is going to be education. Violence looks and is
too stupid and elementary.

>I wish I could say I agree with what you say about violence not being
>the answer. I think it depends on the context. I guess if you are willing to be
>"superhuman" and take the principle of non-violence as far as possible,
>it would work. But is it worth the price? Take the liberation movements
>in Southern Africa for example. Let's look at Zimbabwe. Ian Smith's white
>regime was extremely intransigent, and there was no way the blacks would
>have won their freedom in 1980 if they had not fought a war of
>liberation. Look at Kenya, as well. The reason why they won their
>independence and got rid of the color bar at the time they did was
>because Kenyatta and the Mau-Mau, through their violent acts, forced the
>hand of the British to cede to their demands for independence. I think
>that sometimes the shedding of blood is necessary for change, doing it 
>otherwise takes too long. Otherwise half of Africa would still be under 
>colonialism. The reason why the blacks in America were able to win their
>freedom by non-violent means was that there were sufficent white
>liberals  around,it was the right time (the 1960's were a pretty liberal
>era) and also America's position as leader of the "free" world at that
>time could not be reconciled with it having a domestic "apartheid"
>system. Otherwise, I don't think that it could have been done without
>violence.
>   

>Note - I am only advocating violence as a final option, not as a
>       cure-all. I am not advocating violence as a solution in
>       present-day America, because it isn't. 

>Femi. 


And all of those civil rights violations going on in Africa seem to
go unnoticed by Republican Administrations here in U.S.A because there
isn't any oil there. :0
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american