From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Bob Sarver's reply to me
Date: 14 Oct 92 09:33:16 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

Bob Sarver has replied to my soc.motss post, and due to the volume 
of mail I am receiving, I asked if I could post it.  He agreed,
asking only that I post it in its entirety, and then reply.

So here it is:   


>In article <1992Sep23.020754.2805@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com 
>(Bob Sarver) writes:
>[1] I posted a long response to your initial sheet of questions.
>In response to that, you totally misread my point, and accused
>me of having offended blacks.  I did not say anything offensive,
>and your post spent quite some time dealing with a total non-issue.

(me)	  I didn't accuse you of having offended Blacks.  I accused you of
	/ having an argument which, flip the words a bit, would offend
	/ Blacks.  The idea of making that word flip was to have you
	/ either tell me why that flip was not called for, or have you
	/ re-examine what it was you said.

>I believe my point was valid, though.  If a black civil rights march
>were being held, and you (or I) were in the room while the strategy
>discussion were being held, I think we would see that the organizers
>would not want people in the parade that played into the old stereotypes
>of blacks.  They would put black doctors, black businessmen, black
>artists, black housewives, etc. in the parade, to show that they were
>the same as everyone else--and deserved to be respected.
>
>They would not put people in the parade who dressed like the old Sambo
>stereotype, for example.  Also (and please read this slowly, I mean it
>in a thoughtful way) imagine:  suppose some white person suggested that
>the parade have a float shaped like a watermelon.  Can you imagine the
>insult and the outrage that the black organizers would feel?

>Yet, there is nothing wrong with banjos (Sambo), and watermelon is not
>evil or poisonous.  But the reaction  to these things is very hostile.
>Why?
>
>Because even though they are intrinsically neutral, they have been
>identified with blacks in a mocking, scornful way for so long that
>blacks have tried diligently to distance themselves from these images.
>

>This is the model I am suggesting that gays follow.
>


>>
>>[2] You also gave a personal story about helping defend an Arab-owned
>>store.  But my whole point was that it becomes easier
>>to empathize with people's troubles once you get to know them.  Becuase of
>>this, I couldn't find any reason why you would offer that story as evidence.
>
>
>/ My argument was more along the lines of ``you will find hatred
>/ wherever you go, and as you find it, you should resist it in
>/ so much as you are able''.
>
>Your argument is correct; I never meant to say otherwise.
>I have no complaints with this statement.  But just because hatred
>will never ever go away totally, that should not be a reason to stop
>trying to change SOME people's hearts & minds.
>
>Do you believe that getting to know people who are different from you
>is a good way to break down prejudices?  That is really all I am saying.
>And, when the prejudices break down, it starts to "hurt the conscience"
>to say mean things or make bigoted jokes.  I used to make black jokes.
>But now I have so many black friends who have helped me, or stood
>by me in hard times, that I cannot ever bring myself to make a "nigger"
>joke.  Every time I think about it, the face of one of my friends comes to
>mind, and I think about how they would feel if they knew I were telling
>the joke.
>
>/ Boy, do we have problems conversing.  I didn't pick up ``his line
>/ of argument'' -- I maybe picked up his thread, but I have my own
>/ rather different line of argument.  I don't know why it is that
>/ you do not see the differences.  I believe that you see my
>/ arguments and Fritzs' as of the same cloth.  I think that mine
>/ are different.  I wonder what Fritz thinks, and indeed what the
>/ rest of all of you think.
>
>Okay, that is possible.  There has been a lot of people talking past each
>other instead of talking to each other.
>
>>You showed an example where it did not work, and from that example
>>concluded that the principle had no validity whatsoever.
>>
>>But since I had ALREADY stipulated that it does not work with all people, I
>>could not figure out what the problem was:  were you just not reading my
>>posts?  Or did you not understand what I wrote?
>
>/ I may not have understood.  I have read your posts.  I probably still
>/ don't understand, but am working very hard to try to.  I don't think
>/ that already stipulating that something does not work with all
>/ people gives you carte blanche to continue in a futile policy.
>
>How do you define "futile"?  If a medical procedure only saves 60% of
>its victims, is it "futile"?  Do you abandon the procedure just because
>its success rate is less than perfect?
>
>Suppose the rate of recovery for alcoholics is 20%.  Then you introduce
>a program that increases the recovery rate to 40%.  Do you abandon the
>program because it's still less than half effective?
>
>/ My problem with your policy is not that it doesn't work with all
>/ people.
>
>I know that is your objection.  But since these people, these straights
>who don't like gays, would NEVER change their minds on their own,
>then ANY successes we can have in changing minds are more than we would
>have had if we had never tried.
>
>Any minds that you can change are better than changing none at all.
>True or false?
>
>/My problem with it is that is does not come anywhere near
>/the real problem, as I see it, which is that many people have
>/a natural, irrational, and very human hatred of men having sex
>/with men, and women having sex with women.
>
>I think that a large chunk of this fear is from misunderstanding.  Getting
>to know someone is the first step in removing misunderstanding.
>
>/It is this hatred we have to deal with, and this hatred you
>/have not addressed.
>
>The problem with your theory is that you cannot distinguish the shades
>of grey in people's opinions.  Some hatred is so deep that no amount
>of discussion or reasoning will ever reach it; that is true.  Those people
>you just have to write off as hopeless, and fight them whenever they
>surface.
>But that is not true of all people.  There is another huge chunk of people who
>don't like gays, but whose minds are *somewhat* open.  With the proper
>approach they can be reasoned with and eventually made to see.  But it
>has to be handled correctly, because they are like the "undecided voters";
>they can be swung either way--for us, or against us.
>
>Your theory lumps all people who don't like gays into one homogenous category
>of rabid bigots.  That is inaccurate and simplistic.
>
>
>/ We can all get back into the closet and never, ever, ever, appear queer
>/ and avoid all the discrimination.  But this is exactly what I am fighting
>/ against -- the closeted way of life.
>
>/ If the more flamboyant queers have to closet themselves in order for
>/ the more staight appearing to win over a certain fraction of straights
>/ is that a victory?
>
>If the flamboyancy were a natural, unrehearsed behavior, then I would
>agree with you.  However, it is not.  It is practiced, deliberate behavior.
>Now you may argue that this point shouldn't matter; even if it is
>deliberate, the flamboyant gays should still be able to do it.
>
>But the problem with that viewpoint is that it has no endpoint; no checks
>and balances for truly obnoxious or ridiculous behavior.  If you want
>to have green hair and wear lizardskin shirts to draw attention to yourself,
>then that is your right.  However, other people have the right to
>deny you their respect.
>
>>[5] You spoke of what was happening in Bosnia; but that also has nothing
>>to do with what I am talking about, so I didn't respond.
>
>/ Bosnia has a lot to do with what you are talking about.  Why is
>/ there fighting there?  Because of the primate urge to divide things
>/ into ``us'' and ``them'' which is being played out in Bosnia with
>/ such grave consequences.
>
>/ Why do some people hate Gaypeople?  Because they have an ``us''
>/ which is straight, and ``them'' which are Gaypeople.  The ``us versus
>/ them'' behaviour  is seen everywhere.
>
>And the more we emphasize our differences, the more we loudly proclaim
>that we are a separate and privileged group, the more the us vs. we
>cries from the Religious Right will increase.  When we set up our
>own divisions and declare ourselves separate, whose fault is it if
>the Religious Right agrees with us on that?
>
>We can't say "we gays are just like the rest of society", and then turn
>around and say "we are different, so just get used to it".  It doesn't wash;
>it is a contradiction.


------------

I posted this exactly, save for changing 2 spelling errors in my 
original postingwhich I caught on this rereading, and deleting multiple
blank lines.

Laura

-- 
    Since Ryan White was buried in April 1990, his grave has been vandalized
    four times.

    (this news courtesy Rod Williams rjwill6@pacbell.com)

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura