RE: Naders Big Chance

I was a Philosophy major, did my thesis under Bernie Boxill.

I do happen to agree with you that the war on drugs involves several strains 
of institutional racism.  I would not use that line of argument in defense 
of my point of view.

I recognize that both Sharpton and Farrakhan have a large audience, but that 
does not appear to detract from the fact that they are both very bigoted.  
The KKK also has swelling ranks.  I would also argue that a politician has 
no business entertaining the likes of Pat Buchanan, an anti-semite, or Bob 
Jones University, a racist and anti-Catholic institution.  I think most 
progressives agree with my opinion on Pat and Bob, but for some reason feel 
that it is legitimate to engage with the former gentlemen.  That bothers me 
because the former are much more caustic and bigoted than the latter, at 
least in their public statements.  Since I do not know any of them 
personally, that is how I must judge them.

I believe it does more harm than good to involve a cause with a hateful, 
biased person or group.  Just because ignorant white racists are more likely 
to support a non-progressive platform does not make it justifyable or right 
for, say the Republican party, for instance, to establish connections to 
B.J.U. or the KKK, to increase voter turnout.

I am not arguing that you should ignore the people that follow racists.  I 
do think it is important to not implicitly support these racist views by 
going through the leaders of these groups to reach them.  If you do, it 
should be qualified every time by a blanket renunciation of all of the 
hateful ideas and rhetoric that has ever been put forth by them.  I expect 
no less by someone who panders to a racist demagogue on the right, nor do 
most liberals.  That is not such a high bar.

The contrary argument is not so absurd in my opinion: it may not be 
impossible, but it is hypocritical to attempt to establish your credentials 
as a proponent of equal treatment while at the same time engaging hateful 
bigots.  Perception matters.  You cant go to Bob Jones U. and legitimately 
claim at the same time that you support tolerance, unless you at least 
qualify how your views conflict with theirs.  Even if you try your hardest 
to do that, it does not necessarily make up for the symbolic act of having 
showed up there in the first place.

I don't understand what you mean by "the most damaging...  the more 
important criterion."  Help me here...

Go Heels




----Original Message Follows----
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]>
To: Greg Konig <[email protected]>
CC: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
Subject: RE: Naders Big Chance
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:44:13 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Greg Konig wrote:

 > I enjoyed reading your most recent comments on the election on the
 > monkeyfist web site.

Well, thanks!

 > It is odd for you to suggest such a high bar for a white to be 
non-racist,

Did I set a specific bar in this article?

I do set a rather high bar, mostly due to an insitutional analysis of
racism, but be that as it may.

 > while at the same time suggesting that a white politician such as Nader 
is
 > somehow finally connecting to African-Americans by attending an event in 
any
 > way associated with Al Sharpton.

Er...wait. Big Al contaminates *anything* he's associated with? Such that
we must shun *anything* he's *in any way* associated with? Wow, now
*that's* a tough standard.

In any case, Al Sharpton does have a genuine following among
African-Americans. As does Farrakhan. Must we ignore all those people
because they are somehow associated with these figures?

 >  All he accomplished was a humiliating
 > pandering to one of the most infamous racists in US politics,

But is he the most damaging? That seems to be the more important
criterion, eh?

In a recent exchange, I was *mocked* for suggesting that the War on Drugs
might be racists. I was accused of finding a white sheet under every
bed. I was urged to be charitable toward a clearly racist post.

The very same person denounced Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as vicous
racists.

When Strom Thurmond is 4th in line to the presidency, I think that we must
take care where we put our blows.

 > who also
 > happens to be anti-semitic and a verified slanderer.
 >
 > You don't have to pay attention to Sharpton, or Jesse for that matter, to
 > clearly express your commitment to equal treatment under the law for all
 > African Americans.

Well, I didn't say that Nader had to do those things. I pointed out that
that was the only thing he *did* do (well, he also met with the DC
greens). Believe me, I wondered "where was Ralph" about a *lot* of things
(the diallo verdict, Michigan, etc. etc. etc.)

But is the contrary true? That if you *cannot* express your commitment to
equal treatment under the law for all Arican Americans *if you do* listen
to Jackson and Sharpton?

I hope you recognize the absurdity of this.

 >   The fact that you, as well as most progressive
 > commentators,  express this tired argument is rather pathetic.

I certainly *do* think that it's possible to express one's racism by
piling on Sharpton and Jackson *even if* your accusations are entirely
correct. Why would you think otherwise?

 > Respectfully, G (UNC-CH '94)

So we overlap. Did you take any courses in the philosophy dept?

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com