>I agree it must be defended, but not necessarily with violence. I create
>the space in which I am >fully human -- I resist. I can resist in bed, a
>jail cell, at my desk -- so long as I resist delusional >thinking I am
>fully human.
Well, how do you define violence? In the "common sense" of bloody attacks, causing danger to life and limb? Or in a more "rarefied" sense, as in "violation"? Or something else? And how do you respond to someone doing violence to get rid of something they see as violating their "rights" or priviliges?
And how do you know you're not delusional now? !{)>
And what is this "resistance" that one can do in bed?
My, I'm full of questions today! Must be looking for a surrogate. (Happy Mother's Day to the Moms on the list and the List-Mom too!)
>By failed I mean a stable society not rife with violence and repression.
>US history is a litany of both.
So basically, you want everyone to "get along", right? And yes, US history is rife with violence and repression, but in some cases, that violence was justified and used correctly eg enforced busing under desegregation was protected/enforced by state troopers IIRC.
>There probably would be a violent reprisal. I am not convinced that
>violence must be the used to >face this reprisal. Such a belief may be
>part of false consciousness. I do not know much at all >about Ghandi, but
>wasn't part of his approach the use of non-violence?
After I know how you define violence we can talk a bit more constructively about the first couple of sentences, I think.
I've wondered alot about Ghandi as the "old chestnut" of peace. And some time in the future I really will try to examine thoroughly the man and his movement. But for now, I'd have to say, tentatively, that his situation wasn't the same sort of one that would face a nascent socialist society moving towards communism. He had to drive out invaders (and I don't know if those invaders were leaving anyway) and I don't think he and his followers did it all by themselves (I think there were other, bloodier, methods used by other groups vs. the Brits); not quite the same thing, I suspect.
>One could argue that heteros have been "a powerful group that's used to
>having it (power)." >Now that queers have acquired a modicum of power
>there certainly has been a fierce reprisal. >Should queers use violence to
>combat this reprisal? Should we advocate straight bashing? >Bombing het
>singles bars?
One could argue that, but I suspect that one would be arguing from poor premises. While hets have been and still are a powerful group vis-a-vis queers, I think you're overestimating the "power" queers have. There's been a lot more permissiveness on the part of the het community than in the past, but I can't recall any group of queers that have "power". Plenty of advocacy groups, but they don't hold power; they just try to put pressure where they can or give support.
If hets as a group really got nasty, then bombing to open up a space for dialogue might be used by some. It'd have to be decided upon.
As to how to combat reprisal: I'd say it depended on the situation. If you're jumped by a group of fag-bashers, busting heads isn't a bad idea. Or running like hell. If queers as a group had political power (and using that power to advance queer goals), I expect things would be a little bit different from what they are now. Laws against sexual orientation discrimination passed more quickly, with bigger teeth; more overt education of the community, etc. Basically, queer-haters and their ilk would be suppressed, more effectively than, say, fascists and skin-heads are now.
>I like your definition: "the capacity to lie to oneself convincingly." In
>my terms it would also be >called delusional thinking. I do not think that
>passions are mistaken for rationality, but that they >are mishandled
>(fetishized or attached to) and as a result skew/interfere with
>rationality.
My wife and step-daughter had a nice discussion over Mother's Day breakfast at Denny's this morning about passion and rationality. Judy, my wife, has been reading a somewhat progressive mag that has a christian leaning. In it, she's reading about this fellow who seems to be arguing that activists should "give up their hate" vis-a-vis their opponents and what they want changed. While I agreed that that's not a bad idea, I did point out that venting emotions freely ie having a nice clear target to focus one's emotional venting on, could also be a reason some people get into progressive groups at first, so discouraging that might have its downside too.
It's a tough call, the "proper" mix of emotion and rationality. Don't see why that's something important enough to burn brain cells worrying over, but maybe the writer needed a few bucks and the mag was buying, eh? !{)>
Todd
PS: Brian, is there some way you could change your e-mail program, so I don't have to scroll across the page to read what you wrote? Turning on "word wrap" or something? I've taken to copying and pasting your post into WordPad, so I could read it without cross-scrolling.
Other people on the list <cough. cough-cough. COUGH-Chris Doss-cough. Ahem> could stand to do that too.
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines