From: rbpierce@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (richard b pierce)
Subject: Re: Why we go for non-black women
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:01:36 GMT

Let me begin by admitting that I do not expect MR. Chaney to respond
to my post.  I spent a good portion of the last hour reading the various
responses to Mr. Chaney's original post.  I noticed a few things that 
I would like to share.  

1.  Many posters had cogent, intelligent responses to Mr. Chaney's 
    post that would have, if acknowledged, presented a serious challenge
    to his thinking.  Most notably, one netter mentioned Medger's position
    in Helms' election campaign--the highest paid job Medger has ever had.
    A sister in Cleveland (I think) was on the mark with her comments 
    about questioning the reason behind one makes the choice to date
    outside of ones race.  To these, and other intelligent comments 
    Mr. Chaney chose to ignore instead concentrating on the more
    inflammatory and less substantive issue.

2.  What's this with Jesse and "Hymietown" which Mr. Chaney uses
    to brand all "liberal" black voices?  Did Mr. Chaney not read
    Pat Buchanan and his views on Jews?  I only bring up Pat because
    Mr. Chaney avows himself as a conservative and so does Pat. If
    liberals are to think as Jesse than I think I'm free to assume
    that conservatives think as Pat.  Ignorant assumption, I know, but
    it's consistent with the original.

3.  I admit to my position.  I am married to a black woman who possesses
    all the qualities that I could ever want.  She has some qualities
    that Mr. Chaney also desires, or so he writes.  I think I found 
    her because I had no blinders and we remained together because we
    respect one another.

4.  Mr. Chaney defines conservatism as judicial restraint.  I was 
    surprised no one challenged his definition.  I would be interested
    in other definitions.  I'll offer mine:  conservatism is an attempt
    to remain politically consistent with the past based on some form 
    of legitimacy.  Not a horrible thought necessarily but the current
    American strain of conservatism seems to base its validity on a 
    religious morality that is dangerous, at best.  Not because religion
    is wrong, but because they contend if you argue with them you are
    not religious or moral.  

5.  As a ph. d. candidate in history I feel confident in stating that 
    when the discussion moved to Russia and the reason for victory in
    W.W. II, I became bored.  I'm not sure how it got there but I can
    assure you that most of the assertions and causations were, IMHO,
    sophomoric.  If for no other reason than for Mr. Chaney's comment
    that we would not have helped Russia defeat Germany if we had known
    of the atrocities behind the iron curtain.  Mr. Chaney, we knew.

I'm not sure where this debate is anymore.  For the record, I believe
people should date who they want to date and others who feel they 
shouldn't be together can possess their opinion as well.  I hope that doesn't
mean that they will accost or assault the dating couple--rather, they 
can hold their opionions privately.  Mr. Chaney, the sister who lectured
you on your dating situation did you a favor.  She told you how she 
felt to your face.  I hope that you did her the courtesy of telling her
how you feel as you have done so with us.  I hope you didn't misuse the 
opportunity to reach your real audience (the woman who spoke with you) in
an effort to get to your computer to reach us--who maybe your audience.

To all, I hope I haven't bored you.  Keep believing and fighting.

Richard



Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american