Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mcnc.mcnc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!akgua!mcnc!omo From: omo@mcnc.UUCP (Julie Omohundro) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame Subject: Re: American Hostages Message-ID: <739@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 22:19:43 EDT Article-I.D.: mcnc.739 Posted: Tue Aug 20 22:19:43 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 06:02:52 EDT References: <1042@ihlpg.UUCP> <185@pyuxii.UUCP> <11045@rochester.UUCP> Organization: Microelectronics Center of NC; RTP, NC Lines: 39 Xref: linus net.politics:9864 net.flame:10704 On the similarities between 1) baiting the KKK and the Sandinistas and 2) 50s and 60s civil rights demonstrations: I appreciate your comments, but it still seems to me that this EXACTLY what was said about the blacks who demonstrated in the South in the 50's and 60's. Do you remember the Freedom Riders, who were beaten and burned and set on by police dogs)? For certain these people "knowingly placing themselves in a situation where Bad things would probably happen". We CAN "assume these people were rational about their actions" and that they "knew they were probably in for a violent confrontation and possibly martyrdom". They also (paraphrase of your words) "KNEW what the Southern whites were capable of". While I seriously doubt that most of them WANTED to get beaten or burned, I'm sure these people were WILLING to suffer these fates. At the time, this seemed to be the only way to force the law/govt/public to recognize that the rights they had been guaranteed were not being upheld--by purposely baiting this type of attack. (I think they were right in that assessment, too.) Also, while we weren't so media conscious in those days, they could certainly, in this sense, have been said to have been `staging a media event'. And that certainly WAS said at the time. Where's the real difference? I think there is NO real difference. You are asserting a truism (people who do such-and-so deserve this-and-that) based on a principle that you feel applies to a select number of instances. (Perhaps it does.) But I think it also applies to other cases, where it does not prove quite so true. So we are back to the basic truism (how did I get in this mess) that reality is not that simple. The actual application of ideals to specific instances is infinitely tricky and requires knowledge about personal motivations, circumstance and other details that neither you nor I can always judge accurately. Also, I gather your bottom line is that people do not deserve sympathy for the consequences of doing something stupid. Heaven help us all. This is the FIRST thing for which we humans deserve sympathy! (When all you other net.flamers get bored with this, let us know and we'll proceed to e-mail.)