[M&M Guy]

Juulie -

I was going to do the whole quote/unquote thing to go back over the points, but I think I will just confuse myself (yes, even more than I am now!).

I'm confused over who you feel causes the problem, and who is responsible for fixing it - individuals or society? One one hand, you say to join you, as individuals, to tear down that damn wall. But in another point, you say we can't do it as individuals. But isn't society a collection of individuals? To me, blaming "society" for my problems is just another way to relieve myself from my personal responsibilty. I can't change society, I can only change my little corner of the world. But if more people change their own little corners, pretty soon that wall becomes a curb. I don't know if you're familiar with the song, "Alice's Restaurant" by Arlo Guthrie. It's an old song that deals with his experience with the draft during the Vietnam war. In one part of the song, he's talking about what would happen if someone started singing the song during the induction interview process. "You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement." That's how things get changed - as individuals, one brick at a time. There is no "society" entity that will do it for us, just us lowly individuals. On those same lines, there is no society holding back individuals, just individuals being held back. And, I think in most cases, they are just holding themselves back. Maybe, in a lot of cases, they don't know they are holding themselves back. They need to become informed. But, there are others who don't wish to become informed, because it's easier to blame others rather than do the necessary things to get where you want to go. Am I not a D-1 official because the "society" of D-1 assignors has decided a middle-aged white male is not who they want? Or, is it more likely that I am a little over-weight and a little under-talented to actually be a D-1 official? I can blame the "society" for holding me back, or I can take personal responsibilty and realize sometimes it's a combination of my fault and the fact that life isn't fair and everyone isn't going to get everything they want.

Going back to my "leap of faith" argument - hopefully I can articulate what I mean. Usually in a logical progression, you might say, "if point A, then point B", and you can also say, "if point B, then usually point C", and "if point C, then point D". But that doesn't always translate into being able to say, "if point A, then point D". Racism is still, simply put, advantage/disadvantage because of intent. But I'm not sure you can get to the direct connection that our current society is inherently racist without going through a couple of point B's, then point C's, then there it is. Sometimes that logic works, but we have to be careful in assuming it works all the time. I get up in the morning. The sun comes up in the morning. The flowers open when the sun comes up. Therefore, I get up because the flowers open? That's why I asked if there is a specific example of a policy or law that is directly racist, or directly intends to hold back a certain race or group of people. (Well, maybe some people might count affirmative action policies, but that's another discussion altogether.)

The thing that bothers me about the NCAA action, as well as the people against the symbol of the Chief here at the U of I, is the relativly small group of people telling the majority that what they know what's right and what the majority is doing is wrong. Of course, majorities aren't always right (acceptance of slavery), but that doesn't always mean minorities are right as well (Nazis' views about Jews). What happened to the discussion, thought, introspection, more thought, more discussion, etc.? To me, it's following the "leap of faith" logic to say that these mascots and symbols are "hostile and abusive". There is not one school on the list that discriminates against Indian students. None of these mascots were designed to be hostile to Indian culture. Yet, because some Indians are offended by the symbols, and the ones that protest the symbols are met with hostility, therefore the symbols are hostile.

It seems as though there are 2 basic types of people - the idealists and the realists. Some people may call them by other names, such as liberal and conservative. Idealists have the grand, overall view of how society, the world, life in general should be. Realists have the view that life isn't fair, we should just "get over it", human nature is what it is. These are by far gross generalities, but my point is we need both, in balance. The danger lies in one view becoming too prominent.

All I can be responsible for is my own little corner of the world; how I treat people and how I teach my kids how to treat people. Hopefully, others will do the same and those bricks will slowly disappear.

So, do I win the prize for the longest damn post?