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.)