cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (09/21/86)
In article <258@uwmacc.UUCP>, anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: > ...Who can disagree that it would be easier for all > concerned if we could manage to live and let live in our > societies? But my friends, that is *not* going to happen, > any more than Middle East peace is going to happen, any more > than racism is going to disappear. These things have been > with us forever, and will very likely always be with us, no > matter how much we might want them to go away. I take issue with this. Despite the appearant circularity of history, things do change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Salvery used to be an accepted thing, for instance. And race had nothing to do with it for a very long time; normally (in the Western world) slaves were prisoners of war. It also used to be possible to buy one's way out of slavery, and this was all socially acceptable. Centuries later, slavery was conducted on a much for oppressive level, and racism (and or course economy) had everything to do with it. Now, it is completely unacceptable in Western society. The point is that things do change. And they can be made to change, too. Slavery in the US was not overcome by just sitting around and saying it will never change. Certainly, there is still much work that needs to be done, but that is another issue. What I am argue is that a fatalistic view of life and acceptance of the status quo will rarely (if ever) lead to an improvement in society, and it could certainly allow for regression. (I think we see that now with the increase in voter apathy and the conservative swing in government). Perhaps we will not see real change, but through small, incremental changes, perhaps things will be better for future generations. Without hope, what use is anything else? And without work, what use are dreams? > to help him or us. But he's right (all too right) that the > dangers we face are real, totally real, present each and > every day, and in *almost* every place. Millions upon > millions of people (and no, this is *not* an exaggeration!) > want us dead, the sooner, the better. What protects us? One > thing is what some have called isolation, the ghettoizing > force of being a minority in a not generally tolerant > society. As a strategy, it has a lot of defects, but to a > significant extent it works. The ghetto has strength (look > at Stonewall), and it is at least locally and temporarily > effective as a protection. > > What else protects us? More than any other one thing, it's > indifference and apathy. Most people don't care about us, > don't want to know about us, and avoid finding out about us. > This doesn't suit my ideals one bit, but at least it works, > in some fashion or other. > > What else protects us? Another minority, the aware and > caring members of the dominant society, composed of family, > friends, and well-intentioned strangers, our support > network, and fortunately, there are millions of them (for > which many thanks!). In the better cases, we can find ways > to promote our protection by acknowledging this support > and fostering it, trying to answer wisely when someone asks > how she/he might help. There are real problems with labeling thing items as protections. First, a ghetto can be both a strong and a weak point. Strong in that it allows for good communication and a certain sense of solidarity; weak in that it gives the enemy one focus, and that it promotes isolation from the rest of society and thus potential allies. Also, what worked in the past may not work in the present; what worked a while ago may very well not work now. Also, Perhaps isolation was fine for the first stage, but we need to move beyond that or lose all. Apathy is not a protection. People who are apathatic cannot be counted on to protect us. Get a nasty enough minority in power, and if people are apathetic, then they will just let that minority do whatever they what. Part of Hitler's power and control in Germany stemmed from the fact that many people were apathetic. And then he even gave many of them a cause and a reason to believe in Germany. Look what happened there. I agree with that last point. We have allies. We have people ourside of the gay community who support us. There are even some places where mixed dancing occurs (that is, straight and gay couples.) We need to foster that and through our friends, we can make more friends who previously either were against us or were apathetic. We need to build bridges. And through our friends we can gain more friends. Well, this is long enough. Sorry if this sounded like a sermon. -- Chris Young. arpa: cycy@cmu-ri-isl1 uucp: {...![arpa/uucp gateway (eg. ucbvax)]}!cycy@cmu-ri-isl1 "...the strongest of all the arguments against interference of the public with purely personal conduct is that, when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly and in the wrong place." -- John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty", 1859
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (09/21/86)
Sorry I made so many typos in my last post. Let me correct a few things and add
one more point I forgot to mention.
1. "Salvery" was meant to be "Slavery"
2. in
> socially acceptable. Centuries later, slavery was conducted on a much for
"for" should have been "more"
3. I said something along the lines of
"There are real problems with labeling thing items as protections"
"things: should have been "these". I don't know how I messed that one up.
The extra point I wanted to make was this: if we want other people to treat us
well, then we bloody well better treat other people well also. It's a two way
street. If we don't want to be treated like strangers, then we should not treat
others as strangers. If we do not want to be oppressed or excluded, then we
should not oppress or exclude. Certainly there are times when this (exclusion)
is necessary (ie. the Moral Majority comes to a gay (etc.) dance and disrupts
it), but as a rule of thumb I think the "do not unto others as you would not
have them do unto you" and the "do unto others as you would have them do unto
you" rules have a lot of merit.
-- Chris Young.
arpa: cycy@cmu-ri-isl1
uucp: {...![arpa/uucp gateway (eg. ucbvax)]}!cycy@cmu-ri-isl1
"...the strongest of all the arguments against interference of the public with
purely personal conduct is that, when it does interfere, the odds are that it
interferes wrongly and in the wrong place."
-- John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty", 1859