From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Tue Jun 04 2002 - 07:26:46 MDT
From: Olga Bourlin [mailto:fauxever@sprynet.com]
From: "Dickey, Michael F" <michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com>
> What does *any* of this have to do with Ayn Rand? Are you saying that
> because she was allowed to swim in pools with white kids that none of her
> hard work or effort was really that hard?
Olga - "No, I was only saying that for an immigrant she had certain
privileges not
granted to some U.S. citizens, even (we were discussing my use of the word
"luxury")."
You had said "My concern at that time (early 1960s) was with why many black
children couldn't swim in the same pool as "white" children. Whatever did
white children "earn" to be given this privileged status?"
Your whole statement certainly seemed to imply that Ayn Rand didnt work hard
because she wasnt racially oppressed here in the US.
Well, black kids may not have
> been allowed to swim in pools with white kids, but at least they were
alive,
> and werent starving to death.
Olga - "... so are you saying the black kids should have been grateful?
(BTW, many
black kids were killed, and did starve to death.)"
Compared to your average communist peasant, a resounding YEAH! 'Many' how
many? I am sure it was quite a few less than the 30 million under mao or 10
million under stalin. While it is still terrible for *anyone* to starve to
death NOT acknolwedging that .01% of your population starving to death as
being _better_ than 1% or 10% of your population starving to death is only
detrimental to working toward getting fewer people to starve to death in the
world overall.
Compared to the life of the average chinese
> citizen under Mao, the cambodian under pol pot, or any south vietnamese
> after the US withdrawel those poor black kids lived in a utoptia. So whos
> to say those poor black kids had to work hard to get anywhere? Its all
> relative, right?
"... so are you saying the black kids should have been grateful?"
Again, a resounding YEAH! Tell me which you would choose to live with,
racial oppression and segragation in the US or forced collectivazation,
under, say, Pol Pot. Just for reference, you were not allowed to show
affection to a loved one (punishable by death), show remorse at the loss of
a child (punishable by death, as you were criticizing the state) your
marriages had to be approved, your children were taken away around the age
of 5 and sent to some other collectivized farm, your names were changed, if
you had money or spoke english you were killed. Etc. etc. etc. All told
1/3rd of the cambodian population ended up being murdered. Pol pot put
hitler to shame in the speed and effeciency of his murderous regime.
Similiar horrific conditions were prevelant under Stalin and Mao. So I ask
again, where would you rather live? Racially segragated US 1960 as a black
or in cambodia in the early 1970's as a racially 'inferior' cambodian
peasant (which meant imminent execution)
Should they be 'gratefull'? depends on how you define gratefull. If they
knew of some of the other places in the world, they could be greatfull that
they A) are alive and B) are not likely to be executed for merely doing the
things that makes it wonderfull to be human and be alive (falling in love,
for example). Should they aspire toward racial social and economic
equality, absolutely. Should they view the US as the incarnate of all that
is evil because the US has racial problems? No, we have some plenty
incarnates of Evil, and the US isnt all that bad comparitively.
You seem to share a similiar opinion that I have come across a few times
that unless a government and political structure is absolutely perfect, it
is equally bad as all the rest. This is a fallacy of extremes. I think the
simple hypothetical question of 'where /when would you rather live'
illustrates that point quite well. Being forced to sit in the back of a bus
hardly compares to being gased / starved to death / shot in the head /
decapitated / buried alive. I actually picked up a random foriegn policy
journal a few weeks ago and turned to a random page, the random sentance I
read said "what right did the US have to push its idealogies on other
countries when combating communism when it had racial domestic problems"
This failure to acknowledge that one system is objectively better for its
citizens than another, even though neither are *perfect* is irrational and
anti - extropian and has led to the suffering of untold millions of people.
For more on the Khmer Rouge and the cambodian mass murder see -
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP6.HTM
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:35 MST