| ||||||||
|
||||||||
Katherine wrote:
This is not bigotry.Sorry, it is bigotry. ‘Bigotry’ is an attitude, the assertion of of a dominance relation based on hate. Paul Harvey is a bigot. Specifically, he bases his argument on the ‘radical chic’ version of the Black Panther Party, w/o knowing (or caring) whom he is really dealing with. Secondly he uses an incident to condemn the Party without really analyzing its nature or relation to the Party. That is in the typical style of defamatory rhetoric. The issue is not whether something wrong was done. It’s the attitude of hatred, the ideologically based abuse for which the incident described serves as an excuse. Where I used to live in Berkeley, my next-door neighbor was the ex-wife of one of Huey Newton’s bodyguards. She had been one of the founders of the San Jose Chapter of the Black Panther Party. She’d done the breakfast thing, the gun thing, the whole nine yards. But after a while that chapter got taken over by a group of people who turned it into a bank-robbery gang. She resigned from that chapter when she realized that. But unlike Mr. Harvey, she didn’t take some media image of the Panthers and turn it into a hate agenda. She had to deal with the fact that wrong things happened, as well as right things, as a consequence of what was done. 
.. even that left-wing newspaper The New York TimesThat is amazing, I never would have thought of the NY Times as anything but a bastion of the establishment. My concern relative to this list and to the clients movement in general is that we are trying to defend our rights and to win respect for mad people as human beings. The medicine of hatred against the oppressed has no place here. If people do wrong things then that should be engaged and taken seriously. But dissing social movements of the oppressed due to stereotyping is more than bad interpretation, it is destructive to our purpose. Respectfully Andrew Phelps | ||||||||
 |