Personally, I doubt your supposition that working people do not
>care about due process, but if they don't, they'[rew just as wrong as if
they
>have racist attitudes--a more plausible claim, from my reading of the
>evidence.
huh. last time i checked those mahvalous stats on racial proportions among the homeless, poor, working class, [manual/low level service labor] a disproportionate number of them were people of color. what can this statement possibly mean?
as for "the evidence" this is all rather pointless. wouldn't it just be better to try to convey what i did to carrol re Cops -- that people hold contradictory views? and we can figure out a way to exploit those contradictions and fissures in such a way as to avoid pandering but also to avoid talking *at them* as if somehow we are the annoited few who "know" [like we ostensibly "know" about their racist attitudes, ya dig?]
sometimes i really do think people ought to read a bit of dorothy smith on this list, some feminist socialist theory that's a little tough to wade through but does seem to get at this phenom in a much more palatable way than does other more sexy authors du jour.
and woj, sweercheeks, i am a little puzzled as to why you continually marshall the voice of the working class in order to make your point which, as i understand you, is that we altogether too often think we need to beat people into submission to rid them of their odious views and that we need to be a little more creative in the ways in which we approach issues and then perhaps we might stop scratching our heads wondering why the hell no one is jumping on the revolutionary band wagon. okeydoke. why can't we just work with this: let's work with where people are at in our particular communities, a la tourraine? press those fledgling movements and protests with critical analysis, provoking them beyond the given, etc.
kelley