From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: How white America perceives African-Americans??!??
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:45:08 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1993Jan22.021505.18891@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> dem2@pyuxd.uucp (Me) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.180129.13733@oracle.us.oracle.com>
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>In article <1993Jan20.223413.10464@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> 
>>dem2@pyuxd.uucp (Me) writes:

> DM>A stand-up comic said it best: Blacks and whites just have different
> DM>ways of mugging you. A Black person will approach you with a gun
> DM>and say "Give me all your money!". A white person will approach
> DM>you with a pen and say "Sign here Mr. Jones." 8-)

> MF>Perhaps, but I can always say "No" to the guy with a pen.  The guy
> MF>with the gun usually makes that option much harder.

>Well, more people are "mugged" by things they *have to* sign their
>names to than by being accosted on the street. Try saying "no" to
>car insurance when you own a car; try saying "no" to financing when
>you want to buy a car or a house, etc.

Notice the "when you want" included here.  Kind of like complaining
about having to pay if you want to buy these things.  Also, if you
don't like the white guy behind the desk, go to a black owned bank or
insurance company - they exist.

> MF>As before, how many people do you know who have been mugged by blacks
> MF>and how many who have been mugged by whites?  Why don't you want to
> MF>answer the question?

>Because it won't prove anything when you try to separate it from
>the context of American society and history. 

Darryle, I don't think you were intentionally being humorous, but you
are hardly one to talk about separating things from their context.

Just to refresh your memory, the context that this question came up in
was someon complaining about whites sometimes acting like every black
is a potential criminal.  

Now, in that context, the greater context of American society and
history is totally irrelevant.  I mean, do you really expect Joe or
Jane Whiteguy/gal to say "Well, yeah, virtually every person I know
who was mugged was mugged by a black, but seen in the larger context
of American Society and History that's kind of understandable so I
won't be particularly careful about Blacks when I walk home tonight."?
Get real.

>How many people do
>you know (of) who have been lynched by Blacks and who have been
>lynched by whites? 

First off, note that you had to include the word "of" in this
sentence.  It shows you how relatively rare this crime is.  I know
plenty of people who have been mugged, none that have been lynched.

As far as knowing of, well, there's Yankel Rosebloom - the guy from
Crown Heights.  There is the black kid who got shot while in Brooklyn
trying to buy a car.  There is that woman who got raped, tortured, and
murdered a week or so ago in the DC area because she was white.
That's about it as far as knowing of specific cases goes.

>How many people do you know who have been 
>*consistently* denied basic opportunities and privileges based on
>their skin color who are Black and who are white, and as a result
>haven't been accepted as productive members of society? 

Well, when it comes down to identifying specific people, none.  Among
other things, I don't know anyone who isn't a productive member of
society. 

>When we
>begin to answer these questions (and others like them) then we
>can start to address your question.

Well, seems to me like I started answering your questions.  Now how
about an answer for mine?

> MF>A permanent policy of shoot to kill against rioters
> MF>might be a pretty effective permanent solution to riots.

> DM>Not in a society that pretends to be democratic. 

> MF>Sorry, dude, but democracy refers to majority rule.  If the majority
> MF>is happy killing rioters then there is no problem.

>Yes there is a problem. How do you determine what the majority
>*really* wants, 

You let them vote... kind of like we did here in the US a bit over two
months ago.

>and what if the majority turns out to be a minority
>that happens to be in control?

Then they aren't a democracy and the fact that they kill rioters is
irrelevant to the issue.

>Anyway, *pretends to be democratic*
>is the operative phrase. 

You are being a bit too elliptical.  Are you claiming that the US is
not a democracy?  

>I guess I should add "pretends to be civilized"
>for the sake of argument.

I fail to understand why letting savages run riot is "civilized" or,
if it is "civilized", why "civilization" is a desirable state for a
society. 

> DM>I guess a similar sentiment on the part of the British necessitated 
> DM>the Revolutionary War. And look what happened...

> MF>Darryle, I suggest you read up a bit on US history.  The British had
> MF>no such sentiment - they usually bent over backwards by the standards
> MF>of the day to avoid violence. The Revolutionary War was not caused by
> MF>the Brittish shooting rioters.  

>Understanding what I mean requires analogical thought. But even taken
>literally, its not far from the truth. What else was the so-called
>"Boston Tea Party" but a riot?

The Boston Tea Party was a riot.  Notice that the British did not
shoot at the rioters.  That you are apparently ignorant of this fact
is kind of depressing, give that you are presumably a highschool
graduate and will be a college graduate within 3.5 years.

>Maybe 300 years from now the descendants
>of the LA *uprising* will have the manipulative power to call it the 
>"LA Electronics Convention"!

Perhaps, but unlikely.  

Why do you claim that the distrubance in LA was an uprising?  In
particular, what features do you think distinguished it from a riot?

Also, one of the interesting things about the Boston Tea Party was
that the partiers made a point of not stealing any of the tea.  The
rioters in LA seemed primarily interested in lining their pockets and
filling their liquor cabinets.

> MF>If your highschool history courses
> MF>left you with that impression they were pretty pathetic.

>I would agree they were pretty pathetic, but for quite different
>reasons than you suggest. Luckily, my parents instilled me with
>the ability of critical, independent thought so I could read 
>between the lines of the sugar-coated bs taught in history classes.

So what reasons were those?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american