Interblog interlude
When I write, I'm not writing as a party member. I get no talking points. I write from my perspective about issues that catch my eye and I talk about what it means to a Black guy who's been around the block a couple of times. I talk politics, read the economic blogs, and watch court appointments not because it's my idea of fun. I'd much rather be writing philosophical reflections. I do the political thing here because somebody has to make somebody understand that Black folks ain't crazy. To do that I have to understand what they believe (why they believe it is unimportant) and try to explain my views in their terms.
This is easy or difficult depending on the other party. A particular set of beliefs doesn't make or require you to be intelligent or not. Beliefs are absorbed and become the rules by which one lives their habitual life. Beliefs are the laws of nature in our individual semantic worlds.
I'm not picking on Feste per se, it's just that our brief exchange is presents a perfect opportunity to show what the problem is.
What I'm saying is the Republicans are making a specific appeal to the most racist elements of society. Can you deny that?
The Left has equally repugnant idealogical baggage. Human nature is such that some hate simply because they can. Political parties who base their platform on hatred will not succeed in the long term.
You make the assumption that voters are either stupid, complicit or uncaring. That's when you lose voters such as myself.
First of all, by saying the left has equally repugnant ideological baggage, he acknowledges the relationship between the Republican extremists and the CCC and its ilk. That's fine. But the reasons he gives for doing nothing about it—that it's common human nature, that some people hate just because they can…yet hate never wins in the long run—are contradictory. I mean, how long is "the long term?" It's been upwards of 350 years for Black folks, even if you stop counting in 1964.
We're still running on the momentum of all those years. There are still people who are active haters and as the target of said hatred it
really, really bothers me to see the decision makers of the government on such good terms with them.
I think that's a reasoned, reasonable reaction to have.
Feste says I'm assuming that voters are stupid, complicit or uncaring. I never overreact to such statements because what it means is "Given my understanding and outlook, I would only say what you said if I thought people were stupid, complicit or uncaring." In other words, he's assuming I have the same decision process as he does and reasons from effect to cause, thereby deciding what my beliefs are based on his.
I am not judging his decision process. I'm displaying mine.
Consider: I am the target of these extremists and government officials consort with said extremists. Am I justified in at least questioning the possibility of shared values? Of course. And when the response I get is inaction based on a contradictory explanation, how do I judge that? The most charitable explanation is that the other is unaware. None of the others possible explanations are attractive. If the other is stupid, complicit or uncaring, nothing I say will matter. Speaking out would be pointless.
Yet I speak out. Therefore I cannot be assuming stupidity, complicity or lack of concern. What I
actually assume is that a lot of people are just too busy with their lives to see it. Like you can cover the sun with a basketball, close up things loom larger than distant issues. I assume it's ugly enough that if good people are made to face it (because we don't, as much as possible) they will reject it. And in this specific case, I assume Feste has issues of greater importance to him.
Racism is appalling, but so is anti-Semitism. When you speak out against the rampant anti-Semitism in your party then I might take you seriously...for until that time you are no better than those you decry on the right.
And so you decry us on the left…but not those on the right that are no better than us?
[1] Do you complain the most about the one that's worst or the one you think you can influence?
And if we each document our issues, I'll come up with government officials holding the major reins of power. Who will come up with a leftist anti-Semite that have as much control over the destiny of Jewish lives as the Southern Strategy implementing Republican extremists have over Black lives?
I truly understand that everyone's personal issues take up 65% of their field of vision. But I also believe that, from a bird's eye view, given our relative power positions and those of our respective enemies, given the
newness of our freedom and that fact that this freedom has been under continual attack, the Black problem is of greater urgency. So when someone say the
might take me seriously if I undertake their campaign with them, though the demand is unnecessary as far as my actual actions go, I have to reject that demand categorically.
In the USofA, Black people have more to lose than Jewish people, and less to defend with.
Later:[1] I recognize the logical fallacy embedded in the reasoning of the question. Work with me, rationality and logic are similar but not congruent.
posted by Prometheus 6 at 6/8/2003 09:18:23 PM |
Posted by P6 at June 8, 2003 09:18 PM
| Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/822
