My feeling about this is that it is an allegory for what has happened in this country before and what many blacks feel may happen again if they do not carefully scrutinize the behavior and motivations of the American political scene. I agree that America is a great country with many great people, but it has been difficult for a whole group of people to put aside the hard feelings of disenfranchisement that victimized their ancestors. For many, the bad feelings generated by these occurrences will continue to linger their entire lives. Even if they try consciously to put them aside, it's like trying to forgive a neighbor who willingly smacked your mom in the ribs with a baseball bat--it takes a long time before even the slightest ill-feeling fades.

Clarence Thomas is one who has forgiven and has placed his trust in a segment of the American political scene who, on the whole, has been a source of extreme distrust for most of the black population. How could he, many ask, try to find solace in what seems a harbor of elitism and narrow-mindedness. Isn't he aware that, if forced, they will be the first to sell their dark-skinned neighbors down the river? It happened before, it could happen again...or so the thinking goes.

As far as life having an ugly side to it, you don't have to be a lawyer to see it. The signs are everywhere. The struggle between good and evil, wisdom and ignorance, absolutes and compromises is an ongoing given in this country. We are born of a fractious country. Those who say Americans are fat and lazy have a terrible misconception of this country. If anything, America is full of opinions. And with that goes a willingness to defend those opinions in our everyday lives. However, what's most fascinating is, that with these polar opposites in play, America has managed not to come apart at the seams (aside from the Civil War). It still holds together some how despite the differences. Maybe it is as lvs2k says, that despite our differences we are all Americans. There is no arguing that. Once you're in, you're in for good.

Btw, you'd make a good lawyer.

 

FUNNY!!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TRICKS46
[B]Sounds like a good plot for a movie.

 

That book is from the '60's, I have been hearing about it since I was a kid. This is the first time that I have heard anything about a Harvard professor writing it, though; I had always heard that it was written by a black author to try to warn his race that whites couldn't be trusted.

I tried to find references to it on the web, and couldn't find anything.

BTW: Jews are usually considered a minority. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is Jewish and on the Supreme Court.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tanqueray
[B]
BTW: Jews are usually considered a minority.

 

Really? Did you ever take a good look at Sammy Davis, Jr.?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lvs2k
[B]America, being the most successful, richest country in the World with what I think is the best form of government in the World is the envy of the World.

 

he's jewish?

 

If you ignore the ones that originated in Ethiopia, South Africa, Uganda, etc. . Are Jews less of a minority than Latinos? Both are ethnic minorities, there is no Latino race.

I just spent 2 hours searching for information on that book on the web and STILL can't find anything. I even searched the urban legend websites because I thought that there was some kind of story going around that took the book as a real government conspiracy. I give up, unless you know the title.

 

Hey, mingster...am I the only one for whom the irony of how this thread has progressed is not lost?

What was generated here, just now, is a microcosm of what would have been generated around the story.

That is, some couldn't get over the premise and nature of the theoretical constructs used to tell the story to actually contemplate the core question. "The good of the many, versus the good of the few." Either that, or realizing the nature of the actual question, some rational minds turned and fled and caught themselves on the easier-attacked components, the red-herrings of the story.

I sh!t you not -- in one of my senior Philosophy lectures (Philosophy of Science) back in school, after a good hour or so of careful introduction to the idea of Schroedinger's Cat -- a girl, who happened to be notoriously strident and over-confident, actually raised her hand and boldly asked, in a very challenging and get on with it tone of voice: "So...like...what happened to the cat?" I don't know what was funnier -- the depth of ignorance in contrast to the height of boldness, or how the professor managed to give her an answer that had the rest of us ready to burst in hysterics, the whole time she thought she was being answered quite seriously.

Judging by how many here reacted to it, I have to wonder -- is it a story told to merely invoke a situation that in itself is the intended target of analysis?

And that may bake your noodle before or after I asked the question.

Our non-American friends do make a good point despite all this -- how is it that it is always assumed that America will be the point of contact and decision making for such global events? Its quite effective propaganda...fewer nations have more fiercly-patriotic citizens without resorting to brainwashing by religion. That is to suggest that America is not its own religion.

Does, say, France have an Area 51? How about The Vatican? Those tall pointy hats might be hiding some anatomy...