On May 8, 9:34 pm, ta <padl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 8, 7:24 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> ....
> > > > > > > So what to do? NO THING at all.
>
> > > > > > According to you, then, the African-Americans of the South
> > > > > > in the 1950s and 1960s should have accepted racism,
> > > > > > segregation, and lynching and done nothing about them,
> > > > > > except think good thoughts. Their Civil Rights movement,
> > > > > > which actually did secure equal legal and political rights
> > > > > > for them by making a lot of real trouble, was a waste of
> > > > > > time.
>
> > > > > > Is that what you want to say?
>
> > > > > Speaking only for myself . . . no, the AAs of the South should
not
> > > > > have accepted racism. But that is a good example of viral change
-- it
> > > > > all started with a change in consciousness, and that spread
outward,
> > > > > causing the "out there" to change for the better.
>
> > > > > The civil rights movement was about individuals refusing to sit
at the
> > > > > back of the bus etc., and the political system was forced to
react to
> > > > > the change sparked by those individuals. Politics is never the
cause
> > > > > of the change -- politics is always reactionary; a lagging
indicator
> > > > > of change engendered by individuals.
>
> > > > Politics is the theory and practice of determining whose
> > > > will shall prevail (in a community). In the pre-Civil Rights
> > > > South, some people desired to keep things as they were
> > > > ("Accept what is", as Sean put it) and others desired to
> > > > change the existing arrangments. The struggle between
> > > > these two groups was a political struggle.
>
> > > > Now, if you believe in accepting what is, and then say
> > > > that the Civil Rights activists were right to resist racism
> > > > as they did, by making a lot of very public trouble about
> > > > it, then you've plainly contradicted yourself. Perhaps
> > > > you can resolve this contradiction?
>
> > > > In any case, it is plain that the Civil Rights movement
> > > > did achieve many of its aims, which contradicts other
> > > > claims made here (or apparently made -- the writing
> > > > is somewhat vague).
>
> > > Sean can speak for himself, but here are my thoughts . . . taking
> > > action (such as civil disobedience) is the natural result of a
change
> > > in consciousness (inward focus). I personally never said that one
> > > never takes action -- I said that trying to control other people's
> > > lives (politics) to solve problems that are rooted inwardly is a
> > > mistake. Is resisting unequal treatment trying to control other
> > > people? I don't think so.
>
> > It's certainly an attempt to affect their behavior.
>
> Civil disobedience, in its purest sense, is an act of self-assertion
> -- not as an attempt to control other people, but as an attempt to
> assert one's positive self-image. That other people's behaviour
> changes is an effect of the inner work that resulted in that self-
> esteem.
So you don't agree at all with Sean's "do nothing". Not
only do you think activism can be a good thing, but you
have very specific ideas about how it should be carried
out -- "Become the world you want to see," as Gandhi,
a person who got involved in all kinds of material,
worldly, public actions, supposedly put it. A good idea
but not too specific -- and thus we get back to the
question I asked so long ago, "What are we (you, I,
etc.) going to do about it?"
|
