On May 9, 4:21 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 9, 2:00 pm, ta <padl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 11:24 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > 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?"
>
> > I can only repeat what I have already said above:
>
> > "You want me to tell you what to do? If I do that, then I become your
> > "authority", and I assure you I have no interest in that (nor am I
> > qualified to offer such advice, since I am a work in progress myself).
> > Besides, any behaviour that resulted from your actions would then not
> > be authentic, and would therefore be ultimately unsatisfying.
>
> > The answer to the question "what is to be done" can only be answered
> > by you as a result of your inner work, and since your results may be
> > different from mine, it's not my place to say."
>
> I wasn't asking to be told what to do. I have been
> asking if you had any specific ideas about dealing with
> the specific situation we find ourselves in. To repeat
> my example, people are stealing my money and using
> it to kill other people; I consider this to be a significant
> problem. It is true I can sit in my house and think nice
> thoughts, but I have my doubts about the effectiveness
> of that strategy.
>
> If you have no ideas, you could always answer "No."
"Everyone talks about the state, but no one ever
does anything about it."
|
