From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 23:18:31 MST
Olga writes
> Among other things, the documentary portrayed the original 1955-56 bus boycott in
> Montgomery, Alabama (which eventually resulted in the city's busses taking
> down signs dictating "Negroes go to the back of the bus"). Although I had
> read about it and seen the bus boycott presented in other documentaries such
> as "Eyes on the Prize" - I was again taken by the sheet nobleness of the
> boycott. ... If Lee Corbin ever sees that documentary (originally produced
> by HBO) and tells me he thinks that that bus boycott was "obnoxious" ... I'll
> eat my firstborn.
Well, that's a pretty strong claim! ;-) Incidentally, boycotts
have never seemed the least objectionable to me. Let's
consider the hardest case. There is a product X that is
of personal benefit to me to purchase, yet the producers
of the product support political causes I don't like, or
have aroused my ire in other ways. What should I do?
My choice in game theoretic terms is either (C) cooperate
with others who feel the way that I do, and we may have
an effect on that company. (This ignores the possibility
of feeling personal satisfaction in taking even ineffective
action against a foe), or (D) to defect. The latter is an
appealing option because "one vote probably doesn't matter",
and so the boycott may succeed without me. I can take an
even more unprincipled tack by publicly supporting the boycott,
but privately continuing to purchase X. Again, boycotts seem
fine to me.
There next arises the matter on how one's boycott could be
publicized, and it's here where I probably part company with
most people. A meeting of an "action committee" that I join
to further a cause characteristically essays a number of
attention-getting devices. "Let's tie up traffic on the
Golden Gate Bridge!", "or let's string a banner on all the
freeway overpasses in the city!". That's for sure the short
circuit to getting publicity for your cause.
I see demonstrations in exactly this light. Rather than allow
for the memes to permeate our society through ordinary discourse,
a short-circuit is sought. We gamble that our memes will prevail
eventually---that it's actually true that they'll resonate with
people at large---but we don't want any delay at all if possible.
Again: this is just something that you don't want *everyone* to
do. And so unless you have some objectively credible evidence
that suggests that you are in a special position, I still contend
that you should forego this shortcut.
My example of being visited by aliens was not taken seriously.
So let's suppose instead that you are a medical professional,
but for various reasons there are very few in your district,
and what there are have been disgraced by their views. (Say
that all the medical practitioners in your country have been
associated with some heinous dogma, e.g., abortions are up
to the choice of the woman involved.) Now a genuine public
health issue arises: the ground water is poisoned, and people
will soon start dying in great numbers. What to do?
In this case, there is objective evidence that you *are* in
a special position, and it's morally warranted that you take
whatever shortcuts you can---possibly even violently interrupting
a television broadcast in order that your message go out.
Samantha had responded
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> >>Or were the civil rights protests of the 60's obnoxious as well?
> >
> > Yes, to me, they were. Note I'm not debating the
> > efficiency of such tactics, but merely denying that
> > in this case the end justifies the means.
>
> The means of the original civil rights marches were utterly
> peaceful and non-violent.
Of course, that's preferable to the alternative, but
> Hardly a more gentle but determined means to end a great evil could
> have been used. The means in this case were beautiful, powerful and
> example of people putting themselves on the line to oppose oppression.
Either the beliefs in segregation and governmental discrimination
were destined to be overcome in time, or they weren't. I think
that it was just a matter of time. But patience along these lines
was not acceptable to a number of the people involved, and while
I have sympathy for their feelings, I have no sympathy for their
tactics.
The issue was forced. And we are going to be paying the price for
that "forcing" for a long time. To this day, one will always wonder
whether one's black doctor (for example) is truly qualified. Is
he or she *really* capable, or is his/her degree a consequence of
reverse discrimination? It's evils like these that directly
resulted from such mass movements and taking to the streets to
demand immediate change--- immediate change that should have and
ought to have take a generation or more.
Desegregation was also achieved "by force", namely forced busing.
Well, what's happened to it? You don't see or hear very much
about it any longer. The answer is, it didn't really accomplish
anything. The positive changes that did result from the civil
rights movements---that people more quickly came to the reality
of interpersonal relationships and came more quickly to understand
that it all depends on the individual and not the group---was
initially accelerated, all right. But it's payback time: now
we're stuck being a medley of groups; people are less judged
individually on the content of their character than on the color
of their skin, almost as bad as before.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 23:15:45 MST