Joe Jackson (email@example.com)
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:52:30 -0500
> This has gone on for awhile and I forgot if it was you who mentioned
> revolution versus
> reform. Since few of us think reform is an option, is our only choice to
I said that, and to reiterate the point, folks that are trying to change a
system are either reformers or revolutionaries. There's not a third
category. The terms can be applied either on the micro- or macro- level.
I recognize that it is a trait of a lot of the people here to reject labels
outright and to automatically assume they are damaging, but I want to say
that I think the consideration and acknowledgement that there are two types
of thinking (that have relevence to the way cultures and systems have been
changed for thousands of years) promotes understanding and is helpful.
(If the abuse of space, time and topic were not considerations, I have a
very large opinion that our society's antipathy towards labels is wholly
misplaced and completely hypocritical: not only is labeling the singular
unavoidable, subconscious basic survival skill that keeps us alive, it is an
"information parsing tool" without the likes of which humans would not be
able to make deductions of any significance.)
For instance, instead of believing that person A is an elitist,
holier-than-thou close-minded model-snob, applying the historically-relevent
lens of "revolutionary" immediately sheds understanding on the what is to
them "noble" motivations behind their opinions.
And seeing that person B, possibly seen by some as a benevolent,
close-minded, slave-owning unwitting pawn to the evil lord of the
underworld, is functioning in the role of reformer immediately acknowledges
the "noble" intention as well as the complex and difficult negotiations they
are taking on to implement change within the system.
> Revolution is protest, defiance and probably bloodshed.
Not in all contexts. Revolution in its most basic sense (and therefore,
according to Occum, its truest sense) is attempting to effect change from
outside a system. Automatically referencing bloodshed may advance a point,
but is an extrapolation and does not apply here.
Joe Jackson, on the road.
> How far
> are we willing to go to get rid of a system that is not good for our
> children? Just asking. I can tell you, I would join in a
> protest right now.
> Just give me a sign and a place. Would you be willing to do the same?
> Discussion is one thing. Doing something about it is quite
> another. As for
> me abandoning the children I work with now? Forget it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Nov 13 2000 - 10:57:34 EST