From: frankli@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin)
Subject: Re: Query
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:03:30 GMT

mjcarpen@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael J. Carpenter) writes:

>I've been thinking for the past few days with regard to one participant's
>bent as to "politically correct" expression of contempt I have for the 
>attitudes of some White people out there. Being White myself, I find it 
>interesting that I am called a racist against people with my same color of
>skin; but, then, who am I to say. At any rate, I've communicated with a
>handful of people who've stipulated that the tools we need in order to fight
>racism/prejudice need to be updated, changed, reconfigured - Malcolm X 
>expressed this belief many years ago. I've been wondering whether there is
>opinion as to how everyone attacks the fundamental assumptions of a society
>which has been built to exclude, not include, the masses. Should the fight
>for social and economic equity be fought much in the way of the liberals:
>identify the progress, downplay the prejudice as "isolated", talk of
>socio-economic equity? Or, is there a need for more aggressive techniques,
>such as those presented by the youth?  

>I tend towards the latter because it's all too easy to allow the feel-good
>bliss of middle-class America for which the whole of the myriad of social and
>economic hardships seem to be little more than headlines on the evening news.
>When you challenge this bliss by making sweeping statements in order to 
>accentuate the essence of the problem, defensive reactions are abound. Yet,
>I watch people go the other route: show the many ways that situations only
>APPEAR to be worse off than they are. In many ways, I feel when people 
>choose this argument, they minimize the extent to which a person is "allowed"
>to react to his/her personal experiences to the point where it is sometimes
>an effort to avoid the problem instead of facing up to it, correcting it. 
>Several months ago a participant stipulated that he did not feel "guilty"
>for the inequity as it stands in that he did not create it nor does he
>support it; I suppose you could suggest that, on the whole, White people
>are not "guilty" that some white people are ignorant of the social and
>economic inequities. To me, this is another way people "remove" themselves
>from the picture; and, I tend to throw these people back into the picture - 
>which is THE point of my participation in some of these discourses. 

>The question remains: how do we fix a society gone awry?

>Mc


An excellent post. First I would like to say that there is a difference
between reacting and over-reacting. The latter denies effectiveness to
of the former. It also detriments the victims. They become less 
credible. It's a shame, though, that over-reaction is often felt to be
the only way to bring attention to a problem that you experience when 
you are trying to share your pain with a deaf world.

I also agree with you about the guilt of the spectator. I hope I am not
putting words in your mouth, but you seem to say that for someone to
stand by and watch as injustices occur (and not protest or fight for
the rights of the victim(s)) is to be just as guilty as the perpetrator.
I agree with that idea whether or not you are saying it. Silence is
agreement. Violence, however, is not disagreement. It is perpetuation.
Therefore it is agreement. (SBS)

Finally, we don't fix society. We can only fix ourselves. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american