From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Anti-Gang Ad Controversy #2: Letter to the Editor
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:56:12 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <k#9m-9p.barnhart@netcom.com> barnhart@netcom.com (Aaron Barnhart) writes:

>Letters to the Editor
>Evanston Review / August 13, 1992

>TO: Mayor Joan Barr, City Manager Eric Anderson, Evanston Human Relations
>Commission, and the Evanston Review.


>*	The campaign skews historical truth by not addressing the
>	attempted destruction that the KKK aggressively engaged in
>	against the African-American community.

True.  But the purpose of the ad is not to educate people about the
Klan.  The intended audience presumably knows about the Klan.  The
purpose of the ad is to stigmatize gang-banging, as something which is
as destructive to the black community as lynch mobs.

>*	By associating the atrocities committed by the Nazis/Skinheads
>	and the KKK against African-Americans with black-on-black offenses,
>	systematically feeds into mainstream America's stereotypes, that
>	all black males are either gang members, criminals, or at least
>	suspects.

Why?  Do the ads imply that all blacks are gang members?  Would an ad
that condems the Klan imply that all whites are Klan members?


>*	The ad message implies that there is an equal connection with the
>	purposes of these groups.

I'm not sure what an "equal connection" is, but I don't see any reason
to make a big distinction between the two groups.  Both groups consist
of essentially disempowered marginalized people who respond to their
global disempowerment by making themselves locally powerful.  The
modern Klan consists of "poor white trash" types who are generally
poorly educated and essentially irrelevant to the national economy.
They respond to their disempowerment by affirming their position in
the American caste system by making sure that blacks "stay in place."
	Similarly, youth gangs consist primarily of adolescent youths
who are essentially irrelevant to the national economy.  They respond
to their disempowerment by affirming that they "rule" some small
"turf."  These thugs use the same methods, murder and terror, as do
the thugs in the Klan.  Their goal, to make themselves powerful by
dominating others, is similar.  They just manifest their desire as
patriarchal violence, rather than racist violence.

Is racism the only evil we must hate?

>*	The long-term impact of such an ad provides for the transference
>	of responsibility for the brutal treatment of African-Americans
>	historically.

I think it leads to the transference of some sense of *personal*
responsibility for the choices made by some black youth.  Gang
violence has never been (and is not today) the only rational response
to poverty and racism.  The youth culture valorizes gangs.  That's not
something whites imposed, its one response, among a whole range of
possible responses.

Recognition of the reality of white supremacy should never be an
excuse not to be self-critical.



>*	It is disturbing that this process did not include in its conceptual
>	phase a psychodynamic appraisal by a learned committee from the
>	black community.

I agree.  


>The creators of the ad campaign are advocating overlooking the negatives;
>however, an advertising campaign strategy to devalue the existence of all
>gangs, in particular black gangs, should be a balanced advertising campaign
>that includes the contributions made by hard-working African-Americans in
>this great country.

Agreed as well.


-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner