janw@inmet.UUCP (12/17/85)
[Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)] Laura: in your long article, I agree with *everything*; but I would like to underline an important idea: >... what I believe happens is that people have a great well >of frustration and hatred inside them. They look for socially acceptable >ways to dump this and find out that thhe bottom line is ``is is bad to >hate people, except for Gays/Blacks/Orientals/Vietnamese/What-have-you''. >So they go out and hate people in group X, not because they have any >real dislike of group X but because they finally have found a role in >which they can hate. Hatred and frustration are basic, racism (or homophobia or reli- gious bigotry etc.) is an outlet for them. Close one outlet, and some good may be done because people don't *exercise* their capa- city for hatred so much; but it only helps if the deep wells of frustration are exhausted. Otherwise, new outlets will be found, as bad or worse as the old ones. It is the Manichaean view of the world, acquired in formative years; it is the passion for invidious *comparisons* that is responsible: "we are poor *because* others are rich" ; or "we are the good guys *because* we are not like the bad guys". Children have a great capacity to *enjoy* differences, proved by their love for *animals*. If they can only be taught to enjoy a person of different race, religion or social class, as much as they enjoy a squirrel or an elephant - social harmony won't be far away. Jan Wasilewsky
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (12/20/85)
(Begin self-crit) I apologize if I stepped on some exposed nerves in my previous article, which looks to me in retrospect like part flame and part argument, in a wrong balance. Unfortunately, I tend to write while relaxed in a more aggressive manner than good discussion on this net should have, and then I forget to edit or lack the mood at the moment to do so. I am starting to change my views about Eastern Europe and the USSR as a result of another topic, but I still think what I wrote on racism is valid. (End self-crit) I don't think anti-semitism has much to do with people's psychology; as I've written in a past article, I think it has more to do with the definitions of nation historically developed by states which did not include Jews as a protected group. Lack of social and state protection assured that Jewish social status would decline, because national medias and institutions saw no reason to spread positive messages about Jewish accomplishments. It became easy for people to setup Jews as enemies because no institution would stop them. By "state" I don't just mean official national institutions; I also mean what a citizenry thinks a nation or important groups in a nation are. In "Western" states, what the citizenry believes takes on more importance and less importance than in "Eastern" states. More importance in normal social life, because there is freedom to organize according to what one believes. Less importance in official political life, since there is a structure of rights which holds an official state from acting on behalf of citizen beliefs when those beliefs conflict with rights. Anti-semitism is a specific case of racism. I think most racism follows the lines of just what I've described above for historical anti-semitism: because of the organization of popular opinion and national institutions, bad news about the victimized would spread and add to popular information, while good news about the victimized would get bottled up by intent or because people didn't think it significant or interesting. The only "psychology" involved, I'd suggest, is that people follow what they believe and commonly know to be the case. And people remember selectively, saving what fits their beliefs and already accumulated opinions (which could be very complex and flexible), while letting the rest fall thru the cracks. *** A BRIEF DIVERSION ON COMPASSION *** What is compassion? Seems to me that "compassion" means the following: (p) is a person in need, (p) needs help, and I feel bound to, or I want to, help (p). I think that (p) has a right to assistance which I know others might not agree that (p) has, so I am going to do my best part to help (p) live as if (p) had this right for real. And I am not going to advocate that (p) be given this right, apart from suggesting that other individuals like myself be compassionate too. This sounds very complex to me, but it encompasses what I think is a complete description of compassion. I'm offering it up to critique. Ronald Reagan talks about compassion and private charity frequently; this is what I for one think he means. Now, I can't but cry at its self-limitations. For instance, if one is compassionate to the homeless, does that mean that one should *demand* that homeless people be *guaranteed* decent shelter by the public authority? Not necessarily at all. Reaganite Republicans can be compassionate to the homeless because they think the homeless should have no place in the Reaganite social system, that the Reaganite social system should *never* guarantee people decent shelter. Compassion to the poor has nothing to do with the distribution of public funds, whose use for social welfare purposes is fundamentally illegitimate. And it has little to do with the spread or decline of the poor. It's mostly a salve for thin-skinned social darwinists. I believe I'm just being consistent with my distaste for this kind of doublethink when I write that I don't believe in compassion as a useful social remedy for racism. *** END OF DIVERSION *** There are more "psychological" theories than mine. Laura's (broadened by Jan), sounds too Freudian for me to swallow. A social opportunism of the id does not cover most serious examples of racism: >[Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)] >>... what I believe happens is that people have a great well >>of frustration and hatred inside them. They look for socially acceptable >>ways to dump this and find out that thhe bottom line is ``is is bad to >>hate people, except for Gays/Blacks/Orientals/Vietnamese/What-have-you''. >>So they go out and hate people in group X, not because they have any >>real dislike of group X but because they finally have found a role in >>which they can hate. The problem with this is that most modern racism has little to do with frustration at all. If companies screen out blacks from entry-level jobs because many blacks lack work skills or because the average US black performance on educational tests is lower than whites, these motivations show either a bad understanding of how statistics apply to individuals or a pragmatic understanding of the high costs of interviewing. Since this kind of screening is a labeling of individuals according to skin color, it's a classical racist activity. If a company rejects a black as a salesman in the South, for an entry level job, does frustration lead it to do so? Maybe its customers could be expected to not like blacks, and the company is afraid that dislike would reflect on it and its products. Pure racism, to me. Was the paternalism of Gone With the Wind a consequence of frustration and hatred? Or just common opinion about the appropriate place for blacks? Racism again. If a black family comes into a neighborhood and common wisdom is that the movement of black families precedes larger movements and eventual rundown of a community and spread of crime, is resisting that family a sign of frustration and hatred? Racism again. I'd contend that the only racism the above theory might explain is the resentment-against-the-world-as-a-whole type of racism characteristic of the KKK or Aryan Nations -- not unimportant, but not pervasive either. Should one's stance towards common wisdom, as manifested by regular people, businesses, communities, and institutions, be compassionate? Use any definition of compassionate you like. >Hatred and frustration are basic, racism (or homophobia or reli- >gious bigotry etc.) is an outlet for them. Close one outlet, and >some good may be done because people don't *exercise* their capa- >city for hatred so much; but it only helps if the deep wells of >frustration are exhausted. Otherwise, new outlets will be found, >as bad or worse as the old ones. > >It is the Manichaean view of the world, acquired in formative >years; it is the passion for invidious *comparisons* that is >responsible: "we are poor *because* others are rich" ; or "we are >the good guys *because* we are not like the bad guys". > >Children have a great capacity to *enjoy* differences, proved by >their love for *animals*. If they can only be taught to enjoy a >person of different race, religion or social class, as much as >they enjoy a squirrel or an elephant - social harmony won't be far >away. > > Jan Wasilewsky Jan's point about children sounds foolish to me. Children have a great capacity to exploit difference, proved by their exploitation of other children. Which example is more relevant, loving animals or mistreating different children? (Maybe neither -- most children grow out of both) Still, my point is that most racism is not the racism of the frustrated, but the racism of all those who are well-informed about popular national public opinion, and who accept a solely national view as true. (An international view about national delusions cuts down on this junk.) For most people, especially those that claim to be educated, should we feel compassion for their ignorance? Is compassion even the right word to use for what is needed to end most racism? I'd say NO. Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780 or amd!}!ubvax!tonyw
janw@inmet.UUCP (12/25/85)
[Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780 or amd!}!ubvax!tonyw]
>... most modern racism has little to do with
>frustration at all.
>If companies screen out blacks from entry-level jobs because many
>blacks lack work skills or because the average US black performance on
>educational tests is lower than whites, these motivations show either
>a bad understanding of how statistics apply to individuals or a pragmatic
>understanding of the high costs of interviewing. Since this kind
>of screening is a labeling of individuals according to skin color,
>it's a classical racist activity.
You've named a genuine exception to the frustration theory,
though I don't believe companies have a screening procedure like
this. It would be liable to cause a terrible scandal when someone
blew the whistle. The *opposite* kind of racial screening is
widely practiced (the affirmative action). I agree that this is a
racist practice; but it does not proceed from a racist *atti-
tude*. I don't believe, though, that this is "most" or most
dangerous form of, racism. "A bad understanding of how statistics
apply to individuals or a pragmatic understanding of the high
costs of interviewing" are relatively weak causes for action
and relatively easy to overcome. Mass feelings, not rational mis-
calculations of a few executives, are the danger.
>If a company rejects a black as a salesman in the South, for an entry
>level job, does frustration lead it to do so? Maybe its customers
>could be expected to not like blacks, and the company is afraid
>that dislike would reflect on it and its products. Pure racism,
>to me.
Now that is *not* a true exception. That is *reflected* racism.
As soon as southern customers change their attitude towards black
salesmen, companies will follow suit. Here, frustration is still
the root cause.
>Was the paternalism of Gone With the Wind a consequence of frustration
>and hatred? Or just common opinion about the appropriate place for
>blacks? Racism again.
Not *just* opinion, but opinion with strong emotional underpin-
ning. Rationalizatioons for slavery were invented increasingly as
the South felt greater need to defend it. Attitude came first,
opinion afterwards. I've never seen the movie you mention but I
read the book (long ago) and I thought it was a gross idealiza-
tion of real southern attitudes. The peak of Southern racism was
probably reached at the time of Reconstruction. Here, frustration
as root cause is evident; and they never fully recovered.
An interesting analogy is French xenophobia. According to Ana-
tole France (a well-known writer), it dates to the Franco-
Prussian war. Before that, foreigners were very welcome. But the
French never lived down the humiliating debacle of 1870. The
Dreyfus affair was another characteristic result.
In Germany, Jews were made a scapegoat for the Versaille treaty.
Now, this is *the* classical case of racism at work, and frustra-
tion is an obvious cause.
>If a black family comes into a neighborhood and common wisdom is that
>the movement of black families precedes larger movements and eventual
>rundown of a community and spread of crime, is resisting that family
>a sign of frustration and hatred? Racism again.
Analyze it: *why* larger movement. I assume a middle-class neigh-
borhood. The first black families coming are middle class; they
don't run down the community. But, because of racism, some whites
start to sell; others *anticipate* this reaction; prices go down,
and the downward spiral begins. Again, reflexive racism. Substi-
tute a non-racial group (e.g. a professional one) most of whose
members are poor. One member moves in - no stampede follows -
no room for poorer group members - no spiral. Eliminate racial
dislike, and it will be the same with race.
>I'd contend that the only racism the above theory might explain is
>the resentment-against-the-world-as-a-whole type of racism characteristic
>of the KKK or Aryan Nations -- not unimportant, but not pervasive either.
*Very* pervasive, especially in various ethnic neighborhoods. KKK
and AN are just extreme representatives, the tail of the bell
curve - not pervasive by definition. Jimmy Carter won the 1976
nomination in part because of a well-chosen phrase about *ethnic
purity* - for which he then apologized, was publicly forgiven
by Rev. King Sr. etc. - but the point had been made. Or take the
last Chicago mayoral elections - race-driven on both sides. Finally,
take your own example with salesmen in the South. Where does that
customer attitude (enough of it to influence company policy) come
from? Same feelings that, in a much stronger dose, fuel the KKK.
Jan Wasilewskyjanw@inmet.UUCP (12/25/85)
[Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780 or amd!}!ubvax!tonyw]
>>Hatred and frustration are basic, racism (or homophobia or reli-
>>gious bigotry etc.) is an outlet for them. Close one outlet, and
>>some good may be done because people don't *exercise* their capa-
>>city for hatred so much; but it only helps if the deep wells of
>>frustration are exhausted. Otherwise, new outlets will be found,
>>as bad or worse as the old ones.
>>It is the Manichaean view of the world, acquired in formative
>>years; it is the passion for invidious *comparisons* that is
>>responsible: "we are poor *because* others are rich" ; or "we are
>>the good guys *because* we are not like the bad guys".
>>
>>Children have a great capacity to *enjoy* differences, proved by
>>their love for *animals*. If they can only be taught to enjoy a
>>person of different race, religion or social class, as much as
>>they enjoy a squirrel or an elephant - social harmony won't be far
>>away.
>Jan's point about children sounds foolish to me.
That may be, in part, because I was rebutting a thesis no one had
made - not currently. I should have stated it explicitly first.
The thesis was that interracial repulsion proceeds from a *natur-
al*, instinctive distaste for *difference*; that it is therefore
ineradicable; that all that can be done is preventing that feel-
ing from developing into *racist behavior*.
I believe that the animal, biological human nature is not like
that; there is instinctive *attraction* for different creatures,
perhaps based in attraction between sexes and in the attachment
of adults for children. Both are biological, hormone driven. It
would be interesting to know if the same hormones are produced in
the presence of animals. Probably yes, judging by the feelings
of some childless people towards pets.
When deciding about human nature, one naturally turns to children,
the younger the better - before nurture screens nature from sight.
>Children have a great capacity to exploit difference, proved by
>their exploitation of other children. Which example is more
>relevant, loving animals or mistreating different children?
Exploitation? Doesn't ring any bell. Mistreatment - yes, some
children or groups of children are apt to mistreat anyone de-
fenseless. Same children usually torture animals. But this
sadistic attitude *clearly* proceeds from frustration; and it
appears at a much later age than loving animals.
>(Maybe neither -- most children grow out of both)
I disagree: most adults like animals too. I only invoked children
for the reason stated above: to check if the attitude is culturally
induced.
Jan Wasilewskyjanw@inmet.UUCP (01/08/86)
[carnes@gargoyle] >>The *opposite* kind of racial screening is >>widely practiced (the affirmative action). I agree that this is a >>racist practice; but it does not proceed from a racist *atti- >>tude*. I don't believe, though, that this is "most" or most >>dangerous form of, racism. >Affirmative action programs are a form of >discrimination, and it is matter for debate whether such >discrimination is justifiable or not, but to call affirmative action >"racism" shows a stronger attachment to emotion-clouded rhetoric than >to clear thinking. I have often been surprised by the way many >netters sling around terms like "racism" to score debaters' points >without, apparently, understanding what the terms mean. > [definition from Britannica] OK, I plead guilty of using the word "racism" with a nondic- tionary meaning, not guilty of the motives you ascribe to me. Fact is, I used it in the same sense as my opponent (Tony Wuersch), so it wasn't a ploy on my part to score debating points. As for "emotion-clouded rhetoric", that would only make sense if the word "racism" carried different emotional connotations than "racial discrimination" which you admit affirmative action is. To me it certainly doesn't. The concept I needed was very broad - namely, any hostile action or attitude towards anyone, based on their race. Racism seemed to fit, but I'll respect Britannica and desist from using it, using "bigotry" for attitude and "discrimi- nation" for behavior. The whole article you object to is very easy to rewrite with this substitution; it is not dependent in any way on the objectionable term. Jan Wasilewsky
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (01/09/86)
(my firm's site has had some machine problems recently ...)
To restate before discussing Jan's response, I think racism
has most to do with passings on of "common wisdoms", usually
national myths, which describe the relative positions of
peoples and races in vivid terms which the mass media and
our own memories retain and remember, while we filter out
exceptions in the process. National myths, or common wisdoms
if you wish, protect some groups and withhold protection from
others.
As an activity, racism derives more from people not bothering
to separate their thoughts about other individuals from common
wisdoms, than from any resentments or frustrations towards excluded
groups.
Jan seems to believe racism comes from "feelings and attitudes"
which as real emotions, deserve our respect and should be looked
at as emotions individuals should find the heart in their lives
to change.
I link "feelings and attitudes" theories with psychological arguments,
arguments either at the level of individual histories or of drives
common to all members of the human race. I believe in respecting
feelings deriving from individual histories, and of compassion in
that sense.
Where do racist feelings come from? Some feelings come from other
feelings, developed over one's life -- an argument from psychological
history. Other feelings come mostly from other people and a willingness
to accept received opinion and dogma -- an argument from social
environment, media, and bad education.
That the feelings are there is not in dispute, to me. That we should
give these feelings the respect we give to individuals as people with
histories and moralities is what I dispute.
I will not give the feelings towards Vietnamese of a person who learned
them by watching Rambo the respect I give to a person who was a POW
in a Vietnamese camp. And I don't *care* if those feelings are
exactly the same.
I think this is a defenseable moral opinion. And I believe that racist
feelings are almost entirely feelings of the first and not the second type.
Hence I feel all right in giving little respect to them or to people who
animate and develop them.
These kinds of feelings should be open to the corrective intervention of
educational bodies and the state, and so should the ability to animate
and develop these feelings, within the limits defined by individual
rights.
I'll discuss jan's article next.
Tony Wuersch
{amdcad!cae780, amd}!ubvax!tonywtonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (01/09/86)
Part II of 2: In article <28200431@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780 or amd!}!ubvax!tonyw] >>... most modern racism has little to do with >>frustration at all. > >>If companies screen out blacks from entry-level jobs because many >>blacks lack work skills or because the average US black performance on >>educational tests is lower than whites, these motivations show either >>a bad understanding of how statistics apply to individuals or a pragmatic >>understanding of the high costs of interviewing. Since this kind >>of screening is a labeling of individuals according to skin color, >>it's a classical racist activity. > >You've named a genuine exception to the frustration theory, >though I don't believe companies have a screening procedure like >this. It would be liable to cause a terrible scandal when someone >blew the whistle. The *opposite* kind of racial screening is >widely practiced (the affirmative action). I agree that this is a >racist practice; but it does not proceed from a racist *atti- >tude*. I don't believe, though, that this is "most" or most >dangerous form of, racism. "A bad understanding of how statistics >apply to individuals or a pragmatic understanding of the high >costs of interviewing" are relatively weak causes for action >and relatively easy to overcome. Mass feelings, not rational mis- >calculations of a few executives, are the danger. Individual employees do this screening, not companies. How would jan suggest the whistle be blown? The US government doesn't allow statistical measurements, for instance. Whistle blowers who whistle in the wind get fired for troublemaking or disloyalty. As I've said in previous postings, to criticize the opposite direction of screening is to say that racism goes both ways, as if power went both ways. Power doesn't go both ways, it goes overwhelmingly in one way. Same with racism. Screening has to be placed in a social context before judgments pro or con should be rendered. The judgments should change in different social contexts. I think the most dangerous forms of racism are those which can be mobilized by states or politicians. The next most dangerous forms are those which follow from common wisdoms reinforced by mass medias. I'd really distinguish common wisdoms from mass feelings. Mass feelings are things which, I would think, grow through one's own life or experiences. Common wisdoms are things which are quickly passed on and accepted as truths. Racism tends to attach to specific occupations rather than regions. For instance, New York City taxi drivers usually refuse to pick up Black people. I drove in one taxi which told the Black person where I was left off that it had to go off-duty, after the driver had told me what a fuckin' pain it was to deal with these kind of people. (Not an isolated instance, by the way. I lived in NYC for two years.) If we divide the "common wisdom" theory -- the cabbie learned about Blacks from other taxi drivers -- from the "mass feelings" theory -- the cabbie dislikes Blacks from bad personal experiences -- I'd choose the "common wisdom" theory. At least it might explain why the most racist taxi drivers I knew were recently emigrated Russian Jews. >>If a company rejects a black as a salesman in the South, for an entry >>level job, does frustration lead it to do so? Maybe its customers >>could be expected to not like blacks, and the company is afraid >>that dislike would reflect on it and its products. Pure racism, >>to me. > >Now that is *not* a true exception. That is *reflected* racism. >As soon as southern customers change their attitude towards black >salesmen, companies will follow suit. Here, frustration is still >the root cause. Where did frustration enter in? Who was frustrated? Who or what gave people reason to be frustrated? Why don't people distribute their frustrations out randomly, instead of always at the same groups? As to reflection, I think most racism is just reflection. "Reflection" means "reflection of common wisdom", to me. What difference should it make to Blacks that customers have negative attitudes about them? How does that reflect on their abilities as salespeople? >>Was the paternalism of Gone With the Wind a consequence of frustration >>and hatred? Or just common opinion about the appropriate place for >>blacks? Racism again. > >Not *just* opinion, but opinion with strong emotional underpin- >ning. Rationalizatioons for slavery were invented increasingly as >the South felt greater need to defend it. Attitude came first, >opinion afterwards. I've never seen the movie you mention but I >read the book (long ago) and I thought it was a gross idealiza- >tion of real southern attitudes. The peak of Southern racism was >probably reached at the time of Reconstruction. Here, frustration >as root cause is evident; and they never fully recovered. This is just confusing. I think jan is saying that frustration equals emotional underpinnings equals attitudes. But I could just as well say that common wisdom equals emotional underpinnings equals attitudes. I thought the dispute was over the source of the emotions, not the emotions themselves. I thought jan believes the emotions came out of psychological, real-life experience. I believe the emotions are passed around and repeated and invoked by popular communications, because they fit common wisdoms or national myths. Let me distinguish between what I see as psychology here and what I see as sociology. I think psychology is the science of how people interpret and respond to real life experiences. I think sociology is the science of how people take on and transform the attributes of their social environment. Psychology focuses on individual experiences; sociology focuses on social environments and movements. The psychology/sociology debate as it relates to social issues is the following: what is more important as a determinant of social action, the reaction to situations given attitudes, or the transmission and distribution of attitudes themselves? A sociologist would choose the latter, a psychologist the former. As a sociologist, it seems to me that aside from it's being negative, that frustration is the particular attitude being passed around about racially oppressed groups is much less important than that it gets passed around so much and so widely. If jan wants to hold to a psychological theory, he should also be required to explain why, if the transmission of attitudes is not so important, attitudes about races differ so tremendously worldwide (very little racism in Brazil, for instance). If he attributes this to "national psychology", then I'd contend that we are really not arguing about the cause of racism, but about its locus -- nations or individuals. Which would be an advance in the discussion. I say nations. >An interesting analogy is French xenophobia. According to Ana- >tole France (a well-known writer), it dates to the Franco- >Prussian war. Before that, foreigners were very welcome. But the >French never lived down the humiliating debacle of 1870. The >Dreyfus affair was another characteristic result. > >In Germany, Jews were made a scapegoat for the Versaille treaty. >Now, this is *the* classical case of racism at work, and frustra- >tion is an obvious cause. Antisemitism grew in Germany at the height of its success, in the latter half of the 19th century and first decades of the twentieth. The difference between pre-Hitler and Hitler was that the state did not act on antisemitism until the tyrant Hitler had enough power to ignore morality and democratic restraint. It certainly does not date to the treaty of Versailles, and neither, I'd bet, does French antisemitism date to the Franco-Prussian war. >>If a black family comes into a neighborhood and common wisdom is that >>the movement of black families precedes larger movements and eventual >>rundown of a community and spread of crime, is resisting that family >>a sign of frustration and hatred? Racism again. > >Analyze it: *why* larger movement. I assume a middle-class neigh- >borhood. The first black families coming are middle class; they >don't run down the community. But, because of racism, some whites >start to sell; others *anticipate* this reaction; prices go down, >and the downward spiral begins. Again, reflexive racism. Substi- >tute a non-racial group (e.g. a professional one) most of whose >members are poor. One member moves in - no stampede follows - >no room for poorer group members - no spiral. Eliminate racial >dislike, and it will be the same with race. This is an argument that the personal experiences of these families have nothing to do with their reactions to Blacks. That is, it's an argument which says the psychological history of individuals is unimportant except in the broadest degrees -- an anti-psychological argument supporting my case. >>I'd contend that the only racism the above theory might explain is >>the resentment-against-the-world-as-a-whole type of racism characteristic >>of the KKK or Aryan Nations -- not unimportant, but not pervasive either. > >*Very* pervasive, especially in various ethnic neighborhoods. KKK >and AN are just extreme representatives, the tail of the bell >curve - not pervasive by definition. Jimmy Carter won the 1976 >nomination in part because of a well-chosen phrase about *ethnic >purity* - for which he then apologized, was publicly forgiven >by Rev. King Sr. etc. - but the point had been made. Or take the >last Chicago mayoral elections - race-driven on both sides. Finally, >take your own example with salesmen in the South. Where does that >customer attitude (enough of it to influence company policy) come >from? Same feelings that, in a much stronger dose, fuel the KKK. > > Jan Wasilewsky Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780, amd}!ubvax!tonyw
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (01/10/86)
In article <394@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >(my firm's site has had some machine problems recently ...) > I mentioned in that article that I thought my attitude towards racism was a "defenseable moral opinion", but I really shouldn't have put it that way. Too interventionist, and defensive. Call it instead a "reasonable personal attitude" or a "reasonable attitude to a moral question [for power or for the powerless]" and the sense might be more accurate. My writing style often becomes more plodding when my thoughts get more schematic and architectonic. On USENET my writing splits into personable and theoretical modes, sometimes badly mixed. The worst is when, as in this discussion about racism, I get a little morally incensed at an issue I would be better in arguing about if I just dealt with it on a level of formal reason. Easier to say than to do. I'll try to watch that in the future. We may inhabit the same body each time we sit at a keyboard and write, but in my case different people within me write, and they often don't agree on much. I get into arguments with myself. I may have a different perspective on reason from others here on the net in large part because of this. Another article for that, sometime, perhaps. Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780, amd}!ubvax!tonyw