berman@ihuxm.UUCP (01/11/84)
>> " >> ""Do you think Reagan would have done more to free Goodman had the >> "latter been white?" >> " >> " -Andrew W. Rogers >> " >> "Mr. Rogers: >> " >> " Your remark seems to wreak of racial overtones. I don't know >> "what you really meant by that remark, but the first thing that came >> "to my mind was, "Do you think Jackson would have tried to free Goodman >> "had the latter not been black?" >> " >> " >> "Russell Pierce >> " >> " On the Contrary! To raise the issue of race in the Jackson/Goodman/Reagan case is perfectly legitimate! Was the policians' and media blitz about our Vietnam POWs and Iran Embassy hostages that long ago? Have people forgotten the phenomenal amount of rhetoric and whipping up of nationalistic fervor in this country when it came to the Vietnam POWs and the Iran Hostages? Was not Reagan himself one of the loudest politicians on behalf of POWs, MIAs and the hostages? Is it not legitimate to ask why Reagan (and the media too) was so damn QUIET about Goodman when he was in Syrian hands? (Gosh, could it POSSIBLY be because he was Black?) Two explanations come to mind: 1) The loud campaigns of the past had little to do with sympathy for the plight of the captives. They were more aimed at gathering public support for specific political policies: e.g. more bombing of Vietnam, justification for the fiasco of supporting the Shah, and later: to avoid normalization of relations with Vietnam. 2) Goodman, inconveniently, turned out to be Black, and thus somewhat harder for Reagan to whip up the rhetoric over. Alas, racism remains quite pervasive in the American psyche. A Black prisoner, just doesn't quite fit the media image in these campaigns. A blitz about our POW in the hands of the evil enemy might not work so well in it's real aim: gathering support for policies that were becoming increasingly unpopular. Reagan hesitated launching the campaign due to the terrible inconvenience of Goodman being Black. I think Jackson recognized this fact, but also understood that when Reagan saw his Lebanon policies being criticized in this country, he could eventually try to initiate a campaign of using Goodman's imprisonment to justify his failed policies. Goodman in prison provided Reagan with an option to wait on. Goodman undoubtedly would have spent much longer in Syria had not Jackson intervened. For Jackson's efforts, we should all be thankful! For Reagan's fiasco in Lebanon, we should all be angry! -Andy Berman "L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!"
rkp@drufl.UUCP (Pierce) (01/12/84)
So, Andy, I get this impression from your thoughts. Since Goodman was black, Reagan was a loser on both accounts. 1--If he did attempt with the same fervor as Jackson to get him back, Reagan would be accused of just trying to win over the black vote. 2--If he did nothing, he is accused of being a racist. I agree that it is good to have Goodman back, but don't blame Reagan for taking cautious action. Russell Pierce
tjt@kobold.UUCP (01/12/84)
There is an enormous difference between an active member of the armed
forces, captured during active duty, involved in a military engagement
and the capture of civilians in an embassy so I don't think you can
validly compare the response to Goodman's capture and the takeover of
the Iranian embassy.
With respect to Vietnam POW's: the real fuss about POWs and MIAs did
not start until *after* the US had stopped active military involvement
in Vietnam. I don't recall any particular effort to repatriate pilots
captured in Vietnam, regardless of race (at least, not in the two or
three weeks immediately following their capture).
--
Tom Teixeira, Massachusetts Computer Corporation. Westford MA
...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!tjt (617) 692-6200 x275esac@ihuxp.UUCP (Bill Adams) (01/12/84)
I think Mr. Roger's original remark was racist, perhaps unintentionally.
I also agree that Jackson is to be congratulated for getting something
accomplished that Reagan probably couldn't have. The Syrians wouldn't
have returned Goodman directly to the US without a "quid pro quo", one
that the US would have been reluctant to give.
The Syrians got their "quid pro quo" through Rev. Jackson, i.e. a lowly
American citizen and political enemy of the administration accomplished
what the great and powerful US government could not.
Jackson's action was humanitarian in outcome, regardless of what his
personal motives were.
Reagan's lack of belicosity is quite explainable in this matter. A US
pilot was shot down and captured over "enemy" territory. The Syrians
had no requirement to return Goodman except as a humanitarian act.
Reagan acted as any sitting president would under these conditions. He
let the sensitive diplomatic discussions proceed with as little fanfare
as possible. Reagan or anyone else acting as a candidate is under different
constraints than a president in power.
In other words, Candidate XYZ can say things the President XYZ should not.
By the way, I think it would have been equally racist to suggest that
Jackson would have stayed home had Goodman been white.
Enough for now........
--
Bill Adams ==> AT&T Communications <==
ihnp4!ihuxp!esac
(312) 979-6267daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (01/21/84)
#R:ihuxm:-79900:hp-kirk:12800010:000:445
hp-kirk!daver Jan 16 19:07:00 1984
I seem to remember Rev. Jackson having nothing but praise for the support
he got from US representatives in Syria and stating something to the
effect that they played a major role in the freeing of Goodman. I wonder
if, perhaps, the government was doing more than was apparent in the press
and Rev. Jackson happened to find himself in the right place at the right
time.
Dave Rabinowitz
hplabs!hp-pcd!daver