Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
> I don't find
> that this is "seeing in black and white". I find this to be the usual
> methods that the powerful use to justify themselves.
Let's take a minor but interesting example. Back in the '60s at some point an interviewer asked Dean Rusk what he would do if he were in a group that was denied housing or right to sit in a restaurant or the right to vote. (Something like that; I don't remember the exact question or the specific occasion.) He replied, simply, "I would demonstrate." O.K., if we want to be nuanced, and _if_ our main point is to decide whether Dean Rusk is to get into heaven or not, we have to say that it would be wrong to make a black and white judgment of him simply because he vigorously participated in the attempted rape of Cuba and the murderous assault on Vietnam. Mixed.
But from a political standpoint such a nuanced judgment would be foolish. The only sensible position to take was that the leaders of the assault on Vietnam were The Enemy! Period!
There are seven or 700 sides to every issue until you have to take action. Then there are never more than two sides, though as soon as the "action" is over (which may range in time from a few seconds to a few centuries), then all the varied 'sides' reassert themselves, in thought.
Carrol