In a message dated Fri, 27 Oct 2000 2:11:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Bill Mandel <wmmmandel@earthlink.net> writes: <It is also fact that the police and prosecutorial <and judicial psychology (fundamentally race prejudice) <that results in the wry expression, "driving while <Black," extends into every manifestation of <repression, so that the longer sentences, more brutal <treatment, refusal of medical care in jail, being put <in the hole, etc., etc., etc., manifest themselves in <directly political repression as they do in the <indirect repression that has made it possible to <extract super-profits from the lower wages paid to <Blacks. How would an unbiased social scientist approach the dialogue between me and Mandel? The first problem would be to come to terms over the definition of what we are talking about. Although I haven't challenged any of the factual claims Mandel has made, they really don't speak to the issue, as I defined it in my original post on this subject. In my critique of Bruce Frankin, I wrote: "Repression of DISSENT is truly color-blind." [emphasis added] In his first response Mandel inaccurately quoted me by attributing to me the statement that "repression is truly color-blind" and then proceeded with his attack. He has been off-course ever since. Now I would like to propose a methodology which a social scientist would use to evaluate my original statement. Clearly, from the context, I was talking about state-sponsored reprisals intended to punish those engaged in political dissent. Nothing in my statement denied the fact that Blacks and other non-whites have been victimized in this fashion. The implicit claim was that white radicals have enjoyed no special protection against political repression, granted on the basis of skin color alone. Mandel's factual claims about harsher treatment of blacks accused of non-political crimes, such as rape, have not been challenged by me. The problem is that they are simply irrelevant to the evaluation of my original statement. To evaluate my statement, one would have to inspect historically a community in which both blacks and whites were, within the same time period, engaged in similar organized activities of political DISSENT, challenging the status quo from a perspective which leftists would agree was progressive. If evidence emerged of more lenient treatment of whites, it would be relevant. If the research were repeated for numerous communities and the pattern repeatedly confirmed, then my statement, viewed as a testable hypothesis, would have to be rejected. Without going into all the anecdotal evidence, I know that my hypothesis would be sustained by the history in Norman, Oklahoma, and OU during the Vietnam years. ~~ Michael Wright Norman, Oklahoma
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/28/00 EDT