From: mjcarpen@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael J. Carpenter)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Anti-Gang Ad Controversy #2: Letter to the Editor
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:44:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug18.015612.26667@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:

>>*	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.

Deeaamn, we agree! <laughter>

>>*	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."

I guess I agree with the marginalization of members in hate groups on the
psychological level, but only to a certain "clinical" perspective. Mu gut
reaction is to point out that on the whole the gangs seem to be using 
their affiliation as a means of "surviving" economically, for the "safety"
their numbers represent, for retaliatory strikes, et cetera - all of which
are perverted to such an extreme that the gangs are self-defeating. Contrast
this to the KKK who are killing from their own hatred of groups of people,
do not generally appear to be self-destructive, and so on. That is, we can
discuss the whole gang activity w/o ever mentioning a racist movement, but
not when you consider the KKK. The other difference is when the gang activity
stops, even temporarily like it has out in Los Angeles, the people who have
the most to gain from this are the one's who live in the communities where
the gang activity exists - in some urban ares these people being the families,
friends, neighbors, co-workers, of the gang mebers themselve. You can't say 
that of the Klan. I can see how some of the Evanston folk want to make
this distinction; yet, within the context of gang activity as it relates to
Black people, the fact is that the gangs are just as much a threat as anyone
else who has the means to be destructive.

>	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.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Therein lies the distinction I tried to make above. Since this entire issue
of comparisons between the KKK/Skinheads is in the abstract anyway, then 
the distinction must be emphasized. I tried to keep my arguments more reality-
based, which is what I believe those officials in Evanston should do; but,
you drug me into this. In other words, there's an irrelevance to this that
makes for great Ph. D. dissertations, but not for attacking the problem.

>Is racism the only evil we must hate?

Mc>