From: femibyte@athena.mit.edu (Olufemi G Anthony)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.213915.4476@seq.uncwil.edu> frankli@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:
>slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>
>>   Does anyone else out there think that racism is America can
>>be curbed without violence? If so how?
>>   If not why not? Please be more explicit that "whitey
>>                   is about to reap what he has sown."
>
>>Peace, but not without justice,
>>zip
>
>
>Thank you for asking for intelligent responses, maybe it will work for
>you....
>
>Of course you know that this is my opinion on the racism issue. 
>Violence will only PERPETUATE the problem. 
>
>First, Let me address why Violence is NOT the answer. 
>
>There is alot of truth to what Marvin Gaye sang: "War is not the answer
>because only love can conquer hate. "
>Violent acts alienate the other races and perpetuate stereotypes (and
>you know that stereotypes are useless and ugly).
>Violent acts break down communication lines and destroy trust.
>Violent acts become aimless and usually VICTIMIZE THE INNOCENT.
>A good example of this is the white truck driver who was dragged
>from the cab of his truck at the Los Angeles intersection and beaten
>nearly to death because he was (is) white. He was NOT from a Simi 
>Vallet Jury and NOT a racist person either. His beating only
>perpetuated the stereotype that Black people are stupid and violent
>and useless. (ugly stereotype, but the film footage made it look
>that way). Also the Violent act (and all of the others against 
>people because of their race especially Asians) multiplied FEAR,
>which, in itself, is the PRINCIPLE CAUSE of racism.


The only way Blacks can gain **respect** in the US of A is economic
independence. Unfortunately, money talks. There was a time when black
people were docile and nonviolent, yet  were treated no better than
dogs.

>It seems that if Violence invokes fear, and fear invokes racism, then
>Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was correct about the circular issue.
>I think that was the approach he took in his 1967 Hypothesis.

It was not violence that invoked the **initial** fear white people had of
black people. The stereotypes were developed as a justification for the 
greatest crime to be committed against blacks, the crime of slavery. In order
for the white man to resolve the contradiction between his religious
beliefs and his desire to enslave black people, which was motivated by a desire
for profit, he had to dehumanize blacks. 


>Now let me move on with you to another solution: Solidarity.
>In my educated and researched opinion, the most civil-rights and
>ANTI-RACIST gains were made in the mid twentieth century.
>In the period of NON-VIOLENT solidarity, Blacks especially made
>the most striking gains in their economic status AND in their 
>standard of living (see idexes from 1942 thru 1967 and notice the 
>trend). This was a period when demonstration was done with class
>and dignity, and Black people were gaining the dignity they deserved
>at that point because they acted like they were responsible and
>angry at injustices. Rosa Parks was NOT violent, and she has 
>accomplished a HELL of alot more than Ice T. The way to win over
>racism is to prove (to those who are intelligent enough to matter)
>that you are not what they have been told that you are, instead
>of acting foolish and being violent and perpetuating the circle.
>
>I bet the WHITE BIGOTS want the Blacks to get violent so they
>can have an excuse to believe that Blacks are inferior. (Disgusting).
>
>Violence? Not.
>Don't give the white bigots what they want. They love SILLY BIGOT
>SISTAH. She fits their stereotype of a "nigger" to a T. (No pun).

I wish I could say I agree with what you say about violence not being
the answer. I think it depends on the context. I guess if you are willing to be
"superhuman" and take the principle of non-violence as far as possible,
it would work. But is it worth the price? Take the liberation movements
in Southern Africa for example. Let's look at Zimbabwe. Ian Smith's white
regime was extremely intransigent, and there was no way the blacks would
have won their freedom in 1980 if they had not fought a war of
liberation. Look at Kenya, as well. The reason why they won their
independence and got rid of the color bar at the time they did was
because Kenyatta and the Mau-Mau, through their violent acts, forced the
hand of the British to cede to their demands for independence. I think
that sometimes the shedding of blood is necessary for change, doing it 
otherwise takes too long. Otherwise half of Africa would still be under 
colonialism. The reason why the blacks in America were able to win their
freedom by non-violent means was that there were sufficent white
liberals  around,it was the right time (the 1960's were a pretty liberal
era) and also America's position as leader of the "free" world at that
time could not be reconciled with it having a domestic "apartheid"
system. Otherwise, I don't think that it could have been done without
violence.
   

Note - I am only advocating violence as a final option, not as a
       cure-all. I am not advocating violence as a solution in
       present-day America, because it isn't. 


Femi. 

(Sorry, I'm no pacifist. I'm putting my anti-flame suit on).........



Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american