I understand. However, we can NEVER afford to not take a societal standpoint, we are constantly setting precedents. Events in history were once individual, case by case bases. Fortunately, some people took the time to look beyond the current situations and see the present and future implications of them.
I agree that the guy looks like a kook, but I think that a kook is a kook, regardless of what color he/she is. Hopefully, an ignorant black person would not have been elected, either----difference is that even the most ignorant black person would not have been a member of the Klan, assuming the former is the lesser of the two evils.
Black people have always felt an obligation to see beyond color and instill justice across color/economic/religious barriers. If only others felt such an obligation, this world would be straight, right? Discrimination is not right coming from whites, blacks, or whoever...but in this specific individual, case by case instance...a definite message was sent. Without knowing ALL of the details, I'd say that one message was "we don't want a kooky ex-Klan member...."
Greek Love
Quote:
Originally posted by SoTrue1920
Kimmie & Chaos -
I understood that your responses were taken from a societal standpoint, but isn't there ever a time that we can look at things on an individual, case-by-case basis than bringing in the whole of history in to play when making a decision?
This person wasn't out to take over all of SCLC. Now, from where I sit the guy looks like a kook. If the powers that be in this particular SCLC branch wanted to refuse him because they doubted his sincerity, or that he was a kook, then I fully support them. However, if any other white person (say, Morris Dees for example) came forth and sought not only membership but leadership of the SCLC, I should hope that we wouldn't use the same bigoted thinking that others have used in order to keep someone out just because of the colour of his/her skin.
Like Audre Lorde says, "The master's tools will not dismantle the master's house."
|