>>And only by trying to make this world perfect can one race issues
>Three cheers for denial!!!
>By denying problem's significance, you really think we can change them?
1) The above is not denial. The problem has been acknowledged; now it is
time to fix the problem.
2) The problem is not being denied, so it's significane is not being
denied. It *is* a problem - hence we should all quit whining about who's in
denial and who isn't and get busy fixing the problem.
3) The first step in changing anything is visualization. You don't just go
out and make things happen. You have to visualize it, and figure out how to
get from point A to point B. ANy artist will tell you that - good art
doesn't just happen, it requires a lot of planning and work (especially
So, if you think denial is visualizing, a better world (one without racism)
and trying to make that world a reality is denial, I guess I am in denial.
Of course, by your reasoning, the Wright brothers were in denial of the
fact that powered flight was impossible. Beethoven wrote the 9th Symphony
in denial of his deafness. Martin Luther King marched in denial of the
"proper" place for blacks in American society.
Gee, maybe denial's not such a bad thing, after all.
>I don't buy this. Even if you can come up with an example, think about the
>reasons behind the two types of hostility & tell me if you can still equate
I have to agree that the reasons are vastly different.
>>matter anywhere (though it shouldn't) but there are places where one can
>>be an individual, not part of some herd of cattle.
>Maybe, but where in the good old US of A?
Uh. . .academia? Some corporate offices? Homes of friends? . . .It's not
safe everywhere, but there are places where one can live and work and be
black, queer, Portugese, whatever. No, it's not safe everywhere, but that
doesn't make it unsafe anywhere - to be an individual, that is.
". . .that realm is never long in quiet, where the ruler is a soldier."
-- Castruchio, *The Duchess of Malfi*, by John Webster.