From: dem@engin.umich.edu (Darryle E Merlette)
Subject: Re: Rage, ranting and race
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 19:30:12 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa

In article <BD.92Nov15102147@fluent.UUCP>
bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:

>[stuff deleted]
>By the way, the most eggregious examples of gerrymandering in the recent
>redistricting (that I saw) was intended to increase the power of
>the black vote, not the white vote.

Mo' power to 'em! 8-)
But seriously, was this in Louisiana by any chance? If so, I think I've
heard about this.

>I guess we're going to disagree on this one.  The only consistency
>I see in the "white" group is light skin color - whites are as divided
>politically as blacks are, and the religious right is as far
>removed from my way of thinking as Clarence Thomas' is from 
>Jesse Jackson's.

We can agree to disagree. I don't disagree there's diversity of specific
viewpoints, but I think there are some key fundamental commonalities when it 
comes to race issues. The expression of these commonalities is a major
contributor to the persistence of racism IMHO.

>>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 misunderstanding here.  I didn't mean that you had to look at
>each "case" of racism as a separate issue, but rather each "type"
>of racism.  Job descrimination needs a solution that is different
>from the solution to lack of capital in the inner city.

Okay, I understand what you mean. My view is that if we eliminate
racism at its root then there would be no need to address such
things as job discrimination and urban blight separately. But this
is admittedly somewhat idealistic -- your divide and conquer solution
is more practical (but potentially more vulnerable, for if racism isn't
attacked at its root concurrently, then there'd be nothing to stop
individual problems like job discrimination from recurring).

>>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.
>
>This may be the crux of the difference in our thinking.  When you say
>that if people are offended that's their problem, I say no, it's
>*your* problem too, because offended people aren't going to do
>what's neccesary to work towards a solution.

I guess this is the crux of our difference. I say if people aren't
going to confront the true source of the problem (even when it offends
them) then there's no hope for a solution. They've already stopped short
of doing "what's necessary" for an effective solution. That is why racism 
has proven to be an intractable problem so far, IMHO.

>And despite the rhetoric, the help and good will of both
>blacks and whites is essential to the eradication of racism, IMHO.

I agree. But before we get there we have to air a lot of "dirty laundry",
and whites (individually and as a group) usually take offense to this.

	Darryle

"In order to be true to us we have to hurt the feelings of those who've
been untrue to us."  -- Dr. John Henrik Clarke
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american