From: dem2@pyuxd.uucp (Me)
Subject: Re: How white America perceives African-Americans??!??
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 02:15:05 GMT

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.

 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. How many people do
you know (of) who have been lynched by Blacks and who have been
lynched by whites? 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? When we
begin to answer these questions (and others like them) then we
can start to address your question.

 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, and what if the majority turns out to be a minority
that happens to be in control? Look at South Africa, which operates on 
your "shoot to kill rioters" rule. Anyway, *pretends to be democratic*
is the operative phrase. I guess I should add "pretends to be civilized"
for the sake of argument.

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

 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.

	Darryle