From: dem2@pyuxd.uucp (Me)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: How white America perceives African-Americans??!??
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:30:06 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <1993Jan24.194508.25281@oracle.us.oracle.com>
mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes, in response to our
ongoing "dialogue":

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

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

Or like when you don't want to be mugged by a Black person but prefer
instead, to be mugged by a white person, go to a white neighborhood
instead of a Black one -- 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?

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

MF>Darryle, I don't think you were intentionally being humorous, but you
MF>are hardly one to talk about separating things from their context.
MF>Just to refresh your memory, the context that this question came up in
MF>was someon complaining about whites sometimes acting like every black
MF>is a potential criminal.  
MF>Now, in that context, the greater context of American society and
MF>history is totally irrelevant.  I mean, do you really expect Joe or
MF>Jane Whiteguy/gal to say "Well, yeah, virtually every person I know
MF>who was mugged was mugged by a black, but seen in the larger context
MF>of American Society and History that's kind of understandable so I
MF>won't be particularly careful about Blacks when I walk home tonight."?
MF>Get real.

I'm not the one who needs a dose of reality. Any white who thinks that
"every black is a potential criminal" based solely on their Blackness is
a blatant racist at worst or has trouble dealing with reality in context
at best. Race alone does not make one an "unsavory character". Got it?

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

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

No, damnit, it shows that people who've been lynched don't live to
tell about it. Geez!

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

Brilliant display of ignorance.

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

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

Not being a productive member and not being *accepted* as a productive
member are two different things. Note that someone who is perceived as
a "potential criminal" is less likely to be accepted as a productive
member of society, and hence, may be more inclined to find an "unproductive"
means of survival. Any crime stats that try to establish a predisposition
towards crime on the part of Blacks that fail to take these factors
into account (and I have yet to see any that do) are being disingenuous,
and/or manipulative, and/or exploitative. Meanwhile, the media acts as
a catalyst in a vicious cycle that plays and preys on white fear and
Black poverty.

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

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

Okay, I know 5 persons who've been mugged -- 1 white and 4 Black. Two of
them (including the white) were mugged by whites. Another two were mugged by 
Blacks. The fifth was mugged by a Latino. Now, what does that prove without
me telling you the characteristics of the neighborhoods where the muggings
occurred, and the background of the muggers themselves?

 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.

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

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

It is extremely naive to think that voting in the US is a valid example 
of democracy.

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

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

Oh, really?

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

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

Why, yes, those are Bugle Boy jeans I'm wearing.
"...and to the *republic* for which it stands..."

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

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

Nice try...

 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.  

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

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

The Boston Tea Party (BTP) was one of several seminal events that led
directly to the Revolutionary War, where the British soldiers and American 
rioters/protesters/patriots shot at each other. Do you understand now
how it can be said that the British had a sentiment *similar to* "shoot
to kill all rioters"? [NB: *similar to*, not *identical with*, which would
violate the rules of analogy.] Its really not that difficult to grasp. Even 
though its been 3.5 years since I've graduated from undergrad, and I've since
attained a graduate degree, I can still take time out from my busy schedule
to explain basic concepts.

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

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

Just exercising my powers of semantic manipulation thats so popular with
the American media.

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

Since the BTP was not televised, it cannot be said with any certainty
that none of them stole tea. I'm willing to bet some of the rioters
lined their pockets and filled their cupboards with tea. Of course, if
you follow popular historic accounts, you'll never see the word "stolen"
with respect to anything Europeans and their descendents did, be it *land*,
*people*, gold, or tea.
By the way, the *most* interesting thing about the BTP was that the rioters
dressed up as Native Americans -- presumably to perpetuate the myth that
only non-whites riot. I guess the colonists used this to statistically justify
their fear that every non-white was a potential rioter.  I wonder how
many Native Americans were lynched behind this incident?

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

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

MF>So what reasons were those?

It's a thang you wouldn't understand.

Peace out! 
[NB: that means "the end" on my part. Onto more constructive dialogue.]
	Darryle

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Peace is a blessing, and like most blessings, it must be earned."     |
|                                    -- Dwight D. Eisenhower             |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+