From: robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper)
Subject: Re: "Human Nature" wrt Civil Rights (was Re: Utopia)
Organization: Stanford University
	<1992Aug14.170005.7011@riacs.edu>
	<ROBERTL.92Aug15152928@luciano.Stanford.EDU>
	<l8r87oINNd7n@mizar.usc.edu>
	<ROBERTL.92Aug16025724@luciano.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug16.135946.28139@macc.wisc.edu>
Date: 16 Aug 92 21:02:09

In article <1992Aug16.135946.28139@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

   In article <ROBERTL.92Aug16025724@luciano.Stanford.EDU>
   robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper) writes:

   >But there is no doubt that the ultimate goal of the civil
   >rights movements --- the elimination of bigotry --- has to
   >be considered an altered human characteristic.

   Only if bigotry can be considered a human characteristic,
   a property of human beings.  I don't think it can be.

Correction noted.  How about replacing "altered human characteristic"
with "radical social change"?

   >What progress has been made thus far has been imposed on
   >society as a whole by a majority.

   I don't have numbers to back me up, but I would bet the
   progress that's been made (which is damn little) hasn't been
   imposed on society as a whole at all, and certainly not by a
   majority.  Rather, by a minority (thereby giving lots of us
   some hope).  I see it not as a matter of being imposed on
   the society, but rather wrested from it and paid for in
   blood and suffering.  It seems to me the society as a whole
   is about as racist as it ever was.

I agree that little progress has been made, compared to what is
necessary.  Nevertheless, that little bit of progress is very
important.  And to some extent it has been imposed on society as a
whole --- certainly antidiscrimination laws are.  Those who disagree
with them must still obey, or face penalties.

While it is certainly the case that a committed minority was and is
the driving force behind civil rights in the US, it is also true that
a majority (or close to one) acquiesced.  This passivity of the
majority is double edged, for it offers hope both to us and to the
most rabid of our enemies.

I do not mean by "imposed" that civil rights are an imposition or a
burden on society.  They aren't.  I'm just emphasizing that in the
case of civil rights morality has been legislated (to some extent) by
a committed minority with the tacit consent of the majority.

And this is where all the difficult questions come up.  For example, I
want public education to be explicitly GLB positive.  This is a fairly
radical position, and raises difficult questions.  My position creates
a major conflict between the state and several organized religions.
How should the conflict be dealt with?  What about private schools?
etc.

   >Of course, the fact that the values of civil rights are
   >imposed on those who don't agree with them is not, by
   >itself, a valid argument against civil rights.

   Which suggests that there might *be* a valid argument
   against civil rights.  Not in my book, at any rate.

I left the loophole because while there is definitely no valid
argument against the concept of civil rights, not everything done to
promote civil rights is necessarily right.

- Bob