Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame Subject: Re: American Hostages Message-ID: <365@rti-sel.UUCP> Date: Wed, 21-Aug-85 11:47:00 EDT Article-I.D.: rti-sel.365 Posted: Wed Aug 21 11:47:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:06:35 EDT References: <1042@ihlpg.UUCP> <185@pyuxii.UUCP> <11045@rochester.UUCP> Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC Lines: 100 Xref: watmath net.politics:10569 net.flame:11641 Summary: In article <739@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> omo@mcnc.UUCP (Julie Omohundro) writes: >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. >... >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. ... >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? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ For me, clarity of the moral issues involved and a society that's changed to the point where anyone who has an axe to grind can stage a "media event." What do YOU think the Christians in Nicaragua ACCOMPLISHED by their actions? And in what way was the Nicaragua trip 'the only way to force the law/govt/public to recognize etc.'? The blacks in the '50s and '60s were up against a wall and had few options available to them other than civil disobedience. Your drawing a parallel between them and the Christian group seems similar to me to Reagan's comment about the contras being the 'moral equivalent of our founding fathers.' It sounds good, but where's the real similarity? Nicaragua ain't the U.S.A., and the South in those days wasn't a real battleground complete with ongoing guerrilla actions. To say "we weren't so media conscious in those days" is an underexaggeration, to say the least. Part of what I'm reacting to is a tendency on both ends of the political spectrum to manipulate the public consciousness on a superficial level through the mass media. In my younger and more idealistic days I expected more from the left. Now everyone indulges in an orgy of posturing: the group that's most skillful at presenting a good image wins the prize. Half-remembered quote from a Reagan aide just before the second debate with Mondale (I'm sure the shave-headed Moral Majority twerps will be more than glad to correct it): "We're going to steer him away from facts in the next debate and have him stick to the broad issues. He gets in trouble [or creates the wrong impression] when he deals with facts." >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. There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Please examine the following excerpt from my response and tell me again how I'm asserting that "people who do such-and-so deserve this-and-that:" >No one deserves to be shot for expressing his/her political opinions, > ... They may not >have 'deserved what they got,' but the likelihood of something >unfortunate happening in that situation was high. Let me see if I've got this right: you say I assert that people 'deserve' certain things in certain situations. Then you say this might be true in certain cases. Then you say it's also true in other cases, but in those cases it's not so true. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. :-) >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. So what's the proper response? Paralysis? Or maybe you're suggesting I should get on the bandwagon and accept unthinkingly anything anyone does to protest the contras' activities because the general moral stance is correct and hang the details? >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! Sympathy is one thing. Raising voices of righteous indignation over the consequences of someone's 'stupid' actions is another, especially when you suspect the 'stupid' actions were selected to create just that response and those raising their voices know it. My position is that we have no business supporting either the contra thugs OR the Sandinista thugs (I hope that satisfies both ends of the political spectrum :-). I fail to see WHAT the Christian group's actions accomplished, other than reinforcing the left's concept of the contra forces as Brutal Barbarians and the right's concept of the anti-contra-aid forces as Commie Pinkos. It's certainly not going to convince Mr. and Mrs. Potatohead from Midland, Ohio to write their congressman to work against aid to the contras. And it's certainly not going to change the contras' minds, is it? -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly