From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re:  Rage, ranting and race
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:19:21 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


dem@engin.umich.edu (Darryle E Merlette) writes:

>In article <BD.92Nov15102147@fluent.UUCP>
>bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:
>
>>[stuff deleted]
>>By the way, the most eggregious examples of gerrymandering in the recent
>>redistricting (that I saw) was intended to increase the power of
>>the black vote, not the white vote.
>
>Mo' power to 'em! 8-)
>But seriously, was this in Louisiana by any chance? If so, I think I've
>heard about this.

I honestly can't remember where it was, it might have been 
Louisiana but I'm not willing to commit to that.

My point in bringing it up was merely to say that gerrymandering is
used for other purposes besides limiting the power of the
black vote - it can also be used to augment that power.

>>I guess we're going to disagree on this one.  The only consistency
>>I see in the "white" group is light skin color - whites are as divided
>>politically as blacks are, and the religious right is as far
>>removed from my way of thinking as Clarence Thomas' is from 
>>Jesse Jackson's.
>
>We can agree to disagree. I don't disagree there's diversity of specific
>viewpoints, but I think there are some key fundamental commonalities when it 
>comes to race issues. The expression of these commonalities is a major
>contributor to the persistence of racism IMHO.

I'll have to think about this and get back to you.

>>>It's been my experience that there is no such thing as an *isolated* case
>>>of racism (ie., acts of racism cannot be properly addressed and understood
>>>when lifted out of the context of society). Therefore, addressing individual
>>>cases is akin to doctors who treat each individual symptom instead of the
>>>whole disease.
>>
>>A misunderstanding here.  I didn't mean that you had to look at
>>each "case" of racism as a separate issue, but rather each "type"
>>of racism.  Job descrimination needs a solution that is different
>>from the solution to lack of capital in the inner city.
>
>Okay, I understand what you mean. My view is that if we eliminate
>racism at its root then there would be no need to address such
>things as job discrimination and urban blight separately. But this
>is admittedly somewhat idealistic -- your divide and conquer solution
>is more practical (but potentially more vulnerable, for if racism isn't
>attacked at its root concurrently, then there'd be nothing to stop
>individual problems like job discrimination from recurring).

An analogy:

Almost everyone agrees that "disease" is a bad thing.  My
contention is that almost everyone agrees that "racism" is a bad
thing.  I say this from a white perspective.  You may disagree, in fact
I think you do - the implicit point of much of your post is that
white people don't care about racism. For the sake of this discussion, 
though, let's assume that people like me (i.e. white) also reject the
idea that racism is a good thing.

You can't go out into the world and cure "disease".  You have to
cure the individual illnesses, but that doesn't mean that you lose
sight of the overall goal, which is to cure disease.

I think the same applies to racism.  You are right, in an ideal
world we could all agree that racism was bad, and conquer it by
moral righteousness.  But I don't think that works.  I don't think
it's practical.

If the medical community had focused it's energies on curing "disease"
then they would have made no progress.  But since they were able
to rally their forces to cure smallpox, then measles, then whatever,
they are making progress.  In the same way that the medical
community can't cure "disease" since there are many types and
manifestations of illness with subtly different causes, I don't
think society can cure racism with a single approach.  

There is backsliding (both medically and socially).  In my 
analogy, I suppose AIDS would be like the rise of the neo-Nazi 
groups in the U.S.

>>>It may sound harsh, but if people are offended by what may very well
>>>be the truth, then that's *their problem*. It's just unfortunate that
>>>*their problem* becomes *our problem* in a society where they have
>>>control. (Sorry for the "us" vs. "them" terminology, but its the best
>>>way to communicate this particular point). If Blacks had the same
>>>control over their own lives that whites have over their own lives
>>>(and Black lives) then and only then could it truly be said that racism
>>>doesn't matter.
>>
>>This may be the crux of the difference in our thinking.  When you say
>>that if people are offended that's their problem, I say no, it's
>>*your* problem too, because offended people aren't going to do
>>what's neccesary to work towards a solution.
>
>I guess this is the crux of our difference. I say if people aren't
>going to confront the true source of the problem (even when it offends
>them) then there's no hope for a solution. They've already stopped short
>of doing "what's necessary" for an effective solution. That is why racism 
>has proven to be an intractable problem so far, IMHO.

Why do you out "what's necessary" in quotation marks?
This is the big issue, Darryle.  Please don't side-step
it.  What is necessary?  If you have the solution to
the problem, put it our there for discussion.  I'd
love to read it.

>>And despite the rhetoric, the help and good will of both
>>blacks and whites is essential to the eradication of racism, IMHO.
>
>I agree. But before we get there we have to air a lot of "dirty laundry",
>and whites (individually and as a group) usually take offense to this.

Of course we do.  And blacks usually take offense when the issue
of black racism is raised (I can almost hear the flames to this 
paragraph approaching now).  The standard response is along the
lines of "You have to have the power to oppress in order to be 
racist, and blacks don't have the power to oppress, therefore 
they can't be racist".  The argument is fallacious and defensive, 
but that doesn't stop it from being attempted again and again.

I didn't mean to suggest that the subject
of "racism" shouldn't be addressed and discussed.  I 
guess my basic point was that while it might be cathartic 
to yell "racism" every now and then, I'm not sure it's terribly helpful.

The word has been misused so much, that it almost has to be ignored
by people who are actually looking at solutions.  When someone says
that something is racist, I certainly look at it carefully, but
half the time the description is incorrect.

For instance, in a recent discussion about the 
AIDS-is-a-plot-to-kill-blacks-and-other-undesirables conspiracy 
theory, someone posted about Magic Johnson that his shoe size is 
larger than his IQ, to which someone else replied that that was 
a racist comment.  Well, it wasn't.  It's immature and bad
arguing, but it isn't racist.

There are many problems facing black America and urban America.
Some of them are caused by bigotry, and some by classism.  I
find it hard to separate the two sometimes, as do other peoiple.

The high-school drop-out rates in urban areas is disasterously
high, but the problem is complex.  Part of it is no hope for decent
jobs anyway so what's the point (as if there was no point to knowledge 
unless it was rewarded by money).  Is it "racism" that causes so many
urban youths to drop out of school?  Is it "racism" that causes so
many urban girls to get pregnant?  Is it "racism" that causes drugs
to be such a problem in the inner city?  Or is it lack of capital?

Is the lack of capital a result of "racism"?  Certainly some of it is
but not all of it is.  If I had the bucks (and the desire) to set
up a nice store, I wouldn't do it in the inner city.  I'd do it
in the suburbs, not because that's where the white people are, but 
because that's where the *money* is.

Actually a friend and I *were* talking about joint ownership
and management of a bookstore ("Zebra Books") in an area of New 
Haven that was inner city enough to attract a large black audience, 
but not so far in as to scare off the white shoppers, but we couldn't
get the funding together for it at the time.

I don't know what the solutions are.  Do you?

>	Darryle

Brice




-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698