Conference quark::human_relations-v1

Several thoughts here;

She was incredibly tacky at the very least, intolerant in that she should
have stayed out a situation such as that.

You showed admirable restraint, a quick chop to the throat would keep her from 
commenting on anything until the vocal chords healed :-} :-} :-}

TV Evangelists(IMHO) contribute heavily to intolerance(When Pat Robertson
says "the way to save America is to kill all the commies, homosexuals, and
atheists". in fact it is exactly that kind of preaching and many government 
policies and regulations that(IMHO) have increased intolerance rather then 
lessened it. there is more hatred for minorities than there was 25 years ago
(Yes I am old enough to know) I am not saying there wasn't discrimination back 
then, but that actually is different from intolerance(again my opinion)
the discrimination(at least here in the northeast) was more passive
today it seems there are definate aggressions and hatred perpetrated by
one group on another.(and lots of groups are involved)

I am afraid that it will take many years until there is true toleration
for all.
Amos

    Re: .0
    
         Tolerating intolerance...hmm.  This appears to have the
    possibility of looping back upon itself.  Once you tolerate the
    intolerant, you may accept their choice as a moral alternative to
    your own.  You might then accept intolerance in yourself.  Then
    you would find it acceptable to no longer be tolerant of the
    intolerant.  Then you would be back to a reasonable point of tolerating
    all that you can, except intolerance.
    
                                   Greg 

Reminds me of the comment Tom Lehrer's made on the 'Love Thy
Neighbor' week. He said, "We should all love another. I know there
are people out there who do not love their neighbors and I hate such
people.". 

Seriously, though, there are --and always will be-- people with
narrow minds, or even no minds at all. hence, there will always be
bigotry, bias, hate and fear. 

Should we tolerate such people? I think so, since we don't really
have a choice, But - up to a limit. If they try to harm us, we
should take a stand. Thus, I uphold the old lady's right to object
to interracial dating, but disagree she has a right to embarrass
anyone publicly. Had she accosted me, I would have responded rather
abruptly. 

-- Ron 

    
    I think the that the "onus" belongs to both of you.  She should
    tolerate your lifestyle as it is not her business, you should tolerate
    her view, as you had said, she has the right to express it.
    
    Tolerance is very different from acceptance.  You don't have to
    accept her opinion, as she doesn't accept your choice of lifestyle.
    I have opted for a lifestyle very different from that of my father,
    he has chosen not to accept it, but he is tolerant.  You may ask
    how can he do both.  Well, he refuses to come to my home to visit
    me and my fiancee (we live together).  However, he does meet with
    me for lunch at a "neutral" place.  I accept his decision.  And
    I tolerate the conditions.
    
    So, should you tolerate "those all-engulfing concepts...including
    intolerance" - yes, I believe so.  However, that doesn't mean you
    have to *accept* them as your own.
    
    I hope this makes some sense.
    
    
    jean
                    

 Tolerating all things including intolerance. Hmmm.

 I have noticed around a sort of hypocrisy similar to the one you describe.

 one example:

 Person X says that making moral judgements of people is wrong, and that no
one should ever do that. Person Y makes a moral judgement that to him(or her)
is pretty cut and dried (Like Charlse Manson is a bad person). Person X says
that Person Y is bad because (s)he made a moral judgement. (Say, isn't THAT
count as a moral judgement too?)

 another example:

 In a certain gathering of people, a minority group has more people present than
the majority group. A minority complains about the fact that the opinions of
minorities are often ignored or drowned out by the majority. A discussion
ensues. A member of the majority makes a statement which is roundly attacked
by the minority, not on basis of its logical validity, but on basis of the
source of the statement. So the situation has changed because the minority
group has a larger contingent and is now able to drown out the thoughts of
a majority member (which is exactly what they had complained about earlier).

 And yours-

 The message is that all types of people must be tolerated. Yet those that 
are intolerant of some of the other groups are not tolerated. Doesn't this
make the ones who declare that tolerance is paramount hypocrites? Seems like 
it.

 The Doctah

    re .0
    
    I am rather interested in what your response was.
    
    re -1,
    
    Another example:  Has anyone heard of the expression "It is not for
    me to judge, but I will pray for you.  And if you repent, you will be
    forgiven."?
    
    Eugene

    
    re: .0
    
    In the case cited there was no tolerance by the lady nor any respect.
    Tolerance does not mean acceptance but, it does not deny respect.
    what she did was simply rude and poor taste.
    
    john

    John's got it, in .7.  Respect for others was lacking in her comment.
    Having judged and insulted you, she forfeited any claim to your respect 
    or consideration.  At that point, you should feel perfectly comfortable
    acting according to your own values, without even needing to resort to
    standards of polite behaviour.
    
    I'll tolerate all sorts of shenanigans that don't really bother me or
    make a differencce to me.  But if some arrogant stranger accosted my date
    with a slur which indicated that I had been 'judged', that stranger
    would have gotten a frigid description of respect vs rudeness, and a
    very firm statement to the effect that she was blocking the sidewalk
    and had better move.  Or, if I was in a humorous mood, I'd merely laugh
    at her and her intolerant old ways, encouraging my date to laugh as
    well, and move along, shaking my head at the foibles of narrowmindedness.  
    She'd have stewed for weeks, to be so discounted!
    
    I have a question, though, Kris; I'm wondering if your upbringing
    constrains the way you treat 'elders', as I understand some cultures 
    enforce 'respect towards elders' more than do others.  Is it possible
    you are feeling a conflict between the way you treated that rude bat 
    and the way she deserved to be treated?  I wouldn't trouble myself...
    
    DougO

    re. .6
    
    There was no reply.  I was partly dumbstruck having rarely encountered
    such an overt reaction to my person.  I was also aware that if I
    started to respond I would have ended up playing Kick-the-Can with
    the poor lady's butt.  I could see the headlines:
    
    "Mistaken 'Chinaman' Scores 300 Yd Field Goal With Living Pig Skin.
     RoughRiders Express Interest."
    
    Kris

    re: .0
    
    � Does the onus lie with me to tolerate her view?  
    
    I'd say yes, in the sense that you've already described; she spoke
    her view and you didn't drop kick her into the river (which, I
    believe, carries a penalty of 20 yards and the loss of the down).
    There's nothing that I know of in the definition of tolerance that
    says you have to *like* her opinion.  And I don't think you would
    have been "intolerant" to reply something like, "Well, ma'am, I
    respect your right to speak like a bigotted jerk, but I gotta tell
    you it really frosts my buns to hear that kind of prejudicial crap."
    
    In my mind you were tolerant of her because "tolerance" doesn't
    necessarily mean that you have to ascribe to another's ideas about
    the world, merely that you have to respect them. To have executed 
    the drop kick would have been intolerant.
    
    � Does the onus lie with her to tolerate my lifestyle? 
    
    Yes, and I think that she demonstrated less tolerance by mouthing
    off the way she did.  She had the option to say nothing and she
    chose to speak like a bigot.  But, since haul off and start blasting
    with a sawed off shotgun, it might be argued that she was, at least
    in the legal sense, tolerating your lifestyle.
    
    I think the onus in a society that allows "free speech" is to allow
    others to generally� think and speak as they choose; we will tolerate
    (not necessarily like or agree with, but allow the utterance of)
    lots of different ideas.  I think it's entirely appropriate that
    we will be significantly less tolerant when it comes to actions.
    I should tolerate the sentence "I don't like white males"; I should
    not tolerate the action implied by the sentence, "I will eliminate
    the existance of all white males from this galaxy".
    
    Steve
    

    re -1
    
    Neither of you two said anything?  I would suggest that you turn around
    and say to your girlfriend:  "Honey, shall I kick this bigoted
    bitch into the canal?" :-) :-).
    
    Eugene

    .11 is refering to .9 not .10.  
    
    re .9,
    
    I wouldn't get too upset about someone mistaking Japanese from Chinese
    though.  As a Chinese, I have to admit that I have some difficulties 
    distinguishing Americans from the Canadians (except the folks from 
    Quebec).  Peter Jenning does sound a bit different from say Dan Rather, 
    but then there is the all American Michael J. Fox....  :-). 
    
    Eugene
                   

.0  (Kris)

>She looked at me, this tall oriental guy, then addressed my companion, 
>"It's disgusting.  You shouldn't be with this Chinaman." 



Gads!  I would have come back with something like, "Why?  Are you jealous?"
and give her a sickening sweet smile and kept walking.    :-)   (but, then again,
you know me, Kris!)

Seriously, though.....toleration of others is a two-way street.  Everyone
needs to make the effort to tolerate others and other's views.   I have to 
admit, though, that my toleration of other's intolerance is in DIRECT 
relation to their tolerance of me. (did that make sense?)  If someone's 
rude to me like that, I tend to me equally as rude back (leap before I 
look syndrome?)  I try to never initiate rudeness/intolerance like that, tho.

If everyone were a little more tolerant of each other, we'd have a much 
better world to live in.  

      The thing about those who are intolerant is that they don't JUST
      voice an opinion. They frequently try to force you to comply to
      their beliefs. My tolerance of these people stops when they start
      trying to make me believe as they do.

      The standard "born again" christian attitude seems to be this way.
      The messages I hear from them are "live the way I say or I'll make
      laws to force you". How can I tolerate someone who won't tolerate
      me?

      There's a part of me that thought once "wouldn't it be nice if
      everyone was the same color so there was no intolerance" then I
      started seeing that even in places with a fairly homogeneous
      population, like Ireland, you can always find a reason to hate
      someone for what they are. liesl
      

    I'll second -.1 in stronger terms.
    
    I've been reading a satirical German novel, written during the '30s,
    set in Austria immediately before World War I.  In the novel,
    anti-Semitic, nationalistic, and mystic-Aryan movements are treated as
    "just more special interest groups" and are tolerated on that basis.
    
    Intolerant individuals seem to have a knack for organizing themselves
    into intolerant groups bearing intolerant weapons.  At that point, it
    starts seeming a lot less morally ambiguous to refuse to tolerate them.
    
    Ray

    The women's intolerant remark was unsolicited and intrusive into
    your personal life. She has a right to hold her bigoted views, but
    not to inflict them on you. I would probably have made a very
    unsolicited reply about her bigotry, but then, I'm intolerant
    of intolerance. 
    
    In the early days of the silent film industry:
    D.W. Griffith made a film glorifying the old South called "Birth
    of a Nation." The film was widely picketed for it's racist views,
    which brought Griffith, ironically, to make a film entitled
    "Intolerance".
    
    -roger
    

    When all else fails, there's only ONE appropriate response...
    
    
    		"pfft"
    
    
    The only people that I let call me "Chinaman" are my friends. :-)
    The way I see it, the lady wanted to p*ss you off and she succeeded.
    There's no way I would have given her the satisfaction...better to
    catch them off guard with something irrevelant and confuse the hell
    out of them.
    
    I guess I've been lucky.  I've been out with ladies who obviously were 
    not Chinese.  I've never had any hassles.
    
    
    Le Chinois Fou

I think there is an important difference between being intollerant of
intollerance, and being intollerant of others who behave intollerantly.

As long as we believe there are situations that justify behaving intollerantly
toward others, intollerance of others is going to be with us.  If we want to
reduce intollerance of others, we have to find another way (of being intollerant
of intollerance!)


[The following excerpt, reproduced with implicit permission gives a
fascinating historical perspective on this - (by Ed Kyser, "My Vote for
the Next Millennium", On Beyond War, March 1989)]

  "An eye for an eye" or "Do unto others"?  Which shall it be?  Both of these
  two ancient guides for personal and group behavior are alive and well in
  the 20th century--still competing for the soul of America.

  The core idea of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", was stated in the
  Code of Hammurabi.  In its time, it was an attempt to bring justice to a
  lawless society, and was a tremendous advance for civilization.  That was
  almost 4000 years ago.  It meant that I am justified in doing to you what you
  have done to me, but no more than that.  A person steals, you cut off his
  hand.   It is punitive and negative in nature--damage control, negative
  reinforcement, tit for tat....

  And what about the other view--"Do unto others as you would have them do unto
  you?"  The Golden Rule appears in some form in almost every religion.  It, to,
  is between 3000 and 4000 years old.  It addresses the positive side--how
  should we decide what to do? ...

Interesting choice.

- Peter

    I kind of go along with Steve Mallet back there.
    
    The question is where to draw the line. Let's say that your
    neighbor is of a religion that requires the ritual sacrifice
    of cats. Would it be intolerant to believe and express the
    opinion that this is wrong?
    
    You can't stop stop a person from having an opinion. And our
    principle of freedom of speech means that we can't really stop
    a person from expressing an opinion.
    
    Yes, I think being tolerant of the old woman is the right thing
    to do, as long as her objections to your lifestyle/whatever only
    take the form of thought and speech. She is simply a victim of
    her upbringing. Feel sorry for her.
    
    OK, so now the next question is:
    
    Should we tolerate those who are not tolerant of intolerant people?
    
    :-)
    
    --- jerry

    I once conducted a long (and heavily one-sided) debate in Soapbox,
    contending that it is possible to be bigoted about bigots.  As long as
    you have preconceived notions about a class of people and (this is the
    important part) cannot regard any member of that class as an individual
    when you meet them, you are being bigoted.  For instance, when many
    people think of racial bigotry, they think of the South.  That shows
    evidence of preconceived notions, which is not such a terrible thing in
    and of itself.  The bad part is not being able to modify those notions
    when presented with an individual.  If these people were incapable of
    believing a Southerner free of racial bigotry or if they were incapable
    of accepting an Northerner or Westerner as a racial bigot, they would
    be bigots themselves.
    
    If you're going to tolerate everything, what's the point of having
    principles?

    Divorce will be rare if both partners could tolerate each other's
    weaknesses.

    RE: -.1
�                      -< Tolerance necessary in marriage >-

    No argument there.
    
�    Divorce will be rare if both partners could tolerate each other's
�    weaknesses.
    
    Tolerance does not prevent boredom.  Passive acceptance of the status
    quo in the belief that "it doesn't matter that much" or "I'll get used
    to it" might lead to a stagnant relationship.  A little intolerance in
    the right places might be painful but help prevent a dull ache of minor
    dissatisfaction and a very unpleasant surprise down the road.
    
    At least that's my current theory.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

>    There are many factions in our culture striving for society's moral
>    acceptance of who they are or what they do.  Abortionists, homosexuals,
>    people engaged in inter-racial relationships, minorities seeking
>    employment, televangelists. They are all blowing their horns saying,
>    "Look this way and accept what we're doing.  Tolerate us." 


	What I read in .0 is that you wanted to scream out your
	intolerance to some of the noted "Factions."?

	I can't really understand what your trying to say here.
	That some of these "Factions" should be stopped in the
	street and insulted, So you deserved to be insulted?

	If this was so, then I wouldn't care if you were insulted.
	
	.7 hit it on the head. Respect, give it, recieve it, expect it.

						Dennis

    re. .23
    
    You misread.  I was stating a fact.  Most people want society to accept
    or at least tolerate what they are or what they do.
    
    So, unless you're trying to make a point by being intolerant about
    a (totally misinterpreted) intolerance on my part, I suggest you
    re-read .0.
    
    By the way, it matters little to me whether anyone cares that I
    was insulted.  The event was more humourous than insulting and best
    served as an event for contemplation and as a vehicle to begin a topic.
    
    Kris

    
    re: .0...Kris....
    i like the way you think!
    oddly enough i've been thinking about "tolerance" for awhile
    and was going to start a topic on it only to discover yours!
    
    great minds think alike.....fools seldom differ?
    
    anyway...
    	i've been accused of being "intolerant" of many of the noters....
    and i admit that i was (and still am to a degree) intolerant.
    not so much of the noters per se but more of their intolerance
    towards.....so many things....
    
    i'm intolerant of people who are intolerant of
    	gays, gays adopting children, interracial relationships,
    pro-choice, flag burning, people with non-socially accepted
    points of view or lifestyles (this covers a lot of territory)    

    i'm working on being more tolerant  of these people but....
    it's difficult.
    

    
    
    	re .0
    	
    	Just out of curiosity, what would be your reaction if a beautiful
    	Japanese lady walks arm-in-arm with some non-oriental man???
    

    re .26
    
    I have three very beautiful sisters all of whom date non-Oriental men.
    Of the five siblings in my family not one of them has ever dated/had a
    relationship with an Oriental.  However, knowing how wild my sisters can
    be, I feel sorry for the guys. 
    
    I grew up in a town where Orientals were as common as three-eyed cats.
    I took alot of knocks because of this as a kid and a teenager. The
    knocks stopped after I reached 6' 1" and mastered the ancient Japanese
    art of pretending to know Karate.
    
    The kids that teased and beat on me have become adults.  I wonder what
    kind of attitude towards tolerance they've passed on to their children. 
    
    Kris

We can be intollerant of certain behavior, meaning we feel compelled to do
something CONSTRUCTIVE to try to change it.

But if we are intollerant of people we disagree with, and act to harm them
(even if only verbally), we are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

- Peter

    
    $ set soapbox on
    
    Personally, I find it offensive that *some* people feel empowered
    to decide whats right for all based on whats right for them. Its
    too bad some have yet to learn how to accept differences in each other.
    Considering the roots of this country, tolerance of each others
    color, religion etc should be a given. We should be striving to
    reach the level where we don't see color, don't judge a persons
    personal religious practices. SO...what would I think if I saw an
    oriental with a white...hopefully nothing.
    
    
    Rick

    re: .29
    
    � Considering the roots of this country, tolerance of each others
    � color, religion etc should be a given. 
    
    While I heartily agree that tolerance of others' ideas is something
    this country and the world should strive for, I think that to some
    extent it's exists here in spite of our roots.  The Puritans who
    settled in Massachusetts were a real intolerant bunch; in our early
    history, most blacks came to this country as slaves; and virtually
    every ethnic group that has immigrated here in numbers has been
    segregated and discriminated against.  A core concept of living
    in early America was that if you weren't welcome where you were,
    you could (and should) move somewhere else (and, btw, steal the land 
    from the native inhabitants in the process).  In draft writings,
    our original "inalienable rights" were "life, liberty, and property"
    which, at the time, could include other human beings.
    
    All in all, when I think of our roots, I'm sometimes amazed that 
    we've achieved any considerable level of tolerance at all.
    
    Steve (a.k.a. HANDY::MALLETT)

    I agree with your insight. Considering our beginning, it is amazing
    how far we have come. True too is the reality of how far we need
    to go. My comment about the roots had more to do with the evolution
    of Americans. Each wave of immigrants enhances our culture,
    unfortunetly we do not embrace this idea but are intimidated by
    different culures. Too bad we keep shooting ourselves in the foot.
    
    
    Rick-who-shares-THE_DREAM

This was sent to me by mail and I thought it an excellant piece
    of writing. It seems to fit in this topic.
    
    
    			WILLIE HORTON AND ME

					BY ANTHONY WALTON


I am a black man.  I am a young black man, born, let's say, 
between Brown v. Board of Education and the murders of Schwerner, 
Chaney and Goodman.  Or, in the years that followed the murder of 
Emmett Till, but before the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I am one of the young black Americans Dr. King sang of in his 
"I Have a Dream" speech:  I have a dream that...the sons of former 
slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit 
down together at the table of brotherhood...that my four little 
children will one day live in a nation where they will not be 
judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their 
character...I have a dream today!"

Though I have a living memory of Dr. King, I don't remember that 
speech.  I do remember my parents, relatives, teachers and 
professors endlessly recounting it, exhorting me to live up to 
the dream, to pick up the ball of freedom, as it were, and run 
with it, because one day, I was assured, we would look up and the 
dream would be reality.

I like to think I lived up to my part of the bargain.  I stayed 
in school and remained home many nights when I didn't have to in 
the interest of "staying out of trouble."  I endured a lonely 
Catholic school education because public school wasn't good 
enough.  At Notre Dame and Brown, I endured further isolation, 
and burned the midnight oil, as Dr. King had urged.

I am sure that I represent one of the best efforts that 
Americans, black Americans particularly, have made to live up to 
Dr. King's dream.  I have a white education, a white accent, I 
conform to white middle-class standards in virtually every choice, 
from preferring Brooks Brothers oxford cloth to religiously 
clutching my gold cards as the tickets to the good life.  I'm not 
really complaining about any of that.  The world, even the white
world, has been, if not good, then acceptable to me.  But as I 
get older, I feel the world closing in.  I feel that I failed to 
notice something, or that I've been deceived.  I couldn't put my 
finger on it until I met Willie Horton.

George Bush and his henchmen could not have invented Willie 
Horton.  Horton, with his coal-black skin; huge unkempt Afro, and 
a glare that would have given Bull Connor or Lester Maddox 
serious pause, had committed a brutal murder in 1974 and been 
sentenced to life in prison.  Then, granted a weekend furlough 
from prison, had viciously raped a white woman in front of her 
fiance, who was also attacked.

Willie Horton was the perfect symbol of what happened to innocent 
whites when liberals(read Democrats) were on the watch, at least 
in the gospel according to post-Goldwater Republicans.  Horton 
himself, in just a fuzzy mug shot, gave even the stoutest, most 
open, liberal heart a shiver.  Even me.  I thought of all the 
late nights I had ridden in terror on the F and A trains, while 
living in New York City.  I thought Willie Horton must be what 
the wolf packs I had often heard about, but never seen, must look 
like.  I said to myself, "something has got to be done about 
these niggers."

Then, one night, a temporary doorman at my Greenwich Village high
-rise refused to let me pass.  And it occured to me that it had 
taken the regular doormen, white and Hispanic, months to adjust 
to my coming and going.  Then a friend's landlord in Brooklyn 
asked if I was living in his apartment.  We had been working on a 
screenplay under deadline and I was there several days in a row.  
The landlord said she didn't mind, but the neighbors... Then one 
day, I was late for the Metroliner, heading for Harvard and a 
weekend with several yuppie, buppie and guppie friends.  I stood, 
in blazer and khakis, in front of the New York University Law 
School for 30 minutes, unable to get a cab.

Soaking wet, I gave up on the Metroliner and trudged home.  As I 
cleaned up, I looked in the mirror.  Wet, my military haircut 
looked slightly unkempt.  My eyes were red from the water and 
stress.  I couldn't help thinking, "If Willie got a haircut and 
cooled out..." If Willie Horton would become just a little middle
-class, he would look like me.

For young blacks of my sociological cohort, racism was often an 
abstract thing, ancient history, at worst a stone against which 
to whet our combat skills as we went winging through the world 
proving our superiority.  We were the children of the dream.  
Incidents in my childhood and adolescence were steadfastly, often 
laughingly, overcome by a combination of the fresh euphoria of 
the civil rights movement and the exhortations and Christian 
piety of my mother.  Now, in retrospect, I can see that racism 
has always been with me, even when I was shielded by love or 
money, or when I chose not to see it.  But I saw it in the face 
of Willie Horton, and I can't ignore it, because it is my face.

Willie Horton has taught me the continuing need for a skill 
W.E.B. DuBois outlined and perfected 100 years ago: living with 
the veil.  I am recognizing my veil of double consciousness, my 
American self and my black self.  I must battle, like all humans, 
to see myself.  I must also battle, because I am black, to see 
myself as others see me; increasingly my life, literally, depends 
upon it.  I might meet Bernhard Goetz on the subway; my car might 
break down in Howard Beach; the armed security guard might 
mistake me for a burglar in the lobby of my building.  And they 
won't see a mild-mannered English major trying to get home.  They 
will see Willie Horton.

My father was born in a tar-paper, tin-roof shack on a cotton 
plantation near Holly Springs, Miss.  His father was a 
sharecropper.  His father had been a slave.  My father came north, 
and by dint of a ferocity I still find frightening, carved an 
economic space for himself that became a launch pad to the Ivy 
League, to art school, to professional school, for his children.

As the song by John Cougar Mellencamp says it, "Ain't that 
America..." But a closer look reveals that each of my father's 
children is in some way dangerously disgruntled, perhaps 
irrevocably alienated from the country, their country, that 25 
years ago held so much promise.  And the friends of my father's 
children, the children of the dream Dr. King died to preserve, a 
collection of young people ranging from investment bankers to 
sidemen for Miles Davis, are, to a man and woman, actively 
unsatisfied.

DuBois, in "The Souls of Black Folks," posed a question perhaps 
more painful today that in 1903: "Training for life teaches 
living, but what training for the profitable living together of 
black men and white?"

I think we, the children of the dream, often feel as if we are 
holding 30-year bonds that have matured and are suddenly 
worthless.  There is a feeling, spoken and unspoken, of having 
been suckered.

This distaste is festering into bitterness.  I know that I 
disregarded jeering and oppositon from young blacks in 
adolescence as I led a "square," even dreary life predicated on a 
coming harvest of keeping-one's-nose-clean.  And know I see that 
I am often treated the same as a thug, that no amount of 
conformity, willing or unwilling, will make me the fabled 
American individual.  I think it has something to do with Willie 
Horton.

Black youth culture is increasingly an expresion of alienation 
and disgust with any mainstream (or so-called white) values.  Or 
notions.  Cameo haircuts, rap music, outsize jewelry are merely 
symptoms of attitudes that are probably beyond changing.  My 
black Ivy League friends and myself are manifesting attitudes 
infinitely more contemptuous and insidious; I don't know of one 
who is doing much more on the subject of Dr. King's dream than 
cynically biding his or her time, waiting for some as-yet-
unidentified apocalypse that will enable us to slay the white 
dragon, even as we work for it, live next to it and sleep with it.

Our dissatisfaction is leading us to despise the white dragon 
instead of the dragon of racism, but how can we do otherwise when 
everywhere we look, we see Willie Horton?

And we must acknowledge progress.  Even in our darkest, most 
paranoid moments we can acknowledge white friends and lovers.  I 
wouldn't have survived the series of white institutions that has 
been my conscious life without them.  But is is hard to 
acknowledge any progress, because whites like to use the smallest 
increment of change to deny what we see as the totality.  And, 
even in the most perfect and loving interracial relationships, 
racism waits like a cancer, ready to wake and consume the 
relationships at any, even the most innocuous, time.  My best 
friend, white and Jewish, will never understand why I was ready 
to start World War III over perceived slights at an American 
Express office.  In my darker moments, I suspect he is a bit afraid 
of me now.  In my darkest moments, I wonder if even he sees 
Willie Horton.

Some of you are by now, sincerely or cynically, asking yourselves, 
"But what does he want?"  A friend of mine says that the 
complaints of today's young blacks are indeed different from 
those of generations ago because it is very difficult to 
determine whether this alienation is a clarion call for the next 
phase of the civil rights movement or merely the whining of 
spoiled and corrupted minority elites who could be placated by a 
larger share in the fruits of a corrupt and exploitative system 
that would continue to enslave the majority of their brothers and 
sisters.

I don't think there is any answer to that question.  I also think 
that the very fact it can be asked points to the unique character 
of the American race question, and the unhealable breach that 
manifests itself as a result in our culture and society.  I don't 
think, for good or bad, that in any other ethnic group the fate of 
an individual is so inextricably bound to that of the group, and 
vice-versa.  To use the symbol and metaphor of Willie Horton in 
another way, I do not think that the lives and choices of young white 
males are impacted by the existence of neo-Nazi skinheads, 
murdering Klansmen or the ordinary thugs of Howard Beach.  I also, 
to put it plainly, do not recall any young black man, even those 
who deal drugs in such places, entering a playground and spraying 
bullets at innocent schoolchildren as happened in Stockton, Calif.  
It is not my intention to place value considerations on any of 
these events; I want to point out that in this society it seems 
legitimate, from the loftiest corridors of power to the streets 
of New York, to imply that one black man is them all.

And I want to be extraordinarily careful not to demonize Willie 
Horton.  He should not be a symbol or scapegoat for our sins; he 
is a tragically troubled man - troubled like thousands of others, 
black and white - who was unwittingly used by a President to 
further division and misunderstanding.  If anything, Horton is a 
particularly precise example of the willingness of those in power 
to pit us against one another.  One lately fashionable statement, 
about to slide from truth to truism, is that blacks have the most 
to fear from lawless blacks.  Any clear-eyed perusal of crime 
statistics will prove this.  But what does it avail if the media, 
if the President, use this ongoing tragedy merely to antagonize 
and further separate Americans?

I think that what I am finally angry about is my realization of a 
certain hollowness at the center of American life.  Earlier, I 
mentioned the sense of having undergone a hoax.  That hoax, as I 
now see it, is that the American community is putatively built 
upon the fundamentals of liberty and justice for all, that it is 
to be expected that the freedom to compete will result in winners 
and losers, and that the goal of society is to insure fairness of 
opporunity.  In light of the events of recent years, I begin to 
see that we are, competing or not, winners or not, irrevocably 
chained together, black and white, rich and poor.  New York City 
is a glaring microcosm of this interrelatedness, which can be 
thought of as either a web of fear ensnaring and enslaving us, or 
as a net of mutuality that strengthens us all.

As events like the Central Park rape illustrate, the world is 
becoming ever smaller, and it is increasingly difficult to 
consign social problems to realms outside our personal arenas of 
concern.  I see the connection between Willie Horton and me, 
because it affects my own liberty.  It was not always an obvious 
connection.

Another quote from Dr. King brings the issue into focus."...most 
of the gains...were obtained at bargain rates.  The desegregation 
of public facilities cost nothing; neither did the election and 
appointment of a few blacks to public officials...." To move to 
the next level of progress, we must face the fact that there are 
going to be costs, especially economic costs.  To hire two black 
firefighters means two white firefighters won't be hired, and 
this is no easy reality.  Racism is ultimately based on power and 
greed, the twin demons of most human frailties.  These demons 
cannot be scapegoated, as the saga of Willie Horton proves.  They 
are more like the Hydra, and will haunt our dreams, waking and 
other, regardless.

    I believe   that  this  was  published  in  the  "New  York  Times
    Magazine", either 20 Aug. or 27 Aug. 1989.

It was the 20-Aug issue.

	Steve