Posted by pancho from pool0007.cvx20-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 8:25AM :
In Reply to: Saul Alinsky posted by Julia from dhcp102208.res-hall.northwestern.edu (126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 2:50AM :
A truer Radical doesn't "rebel". To rebel is merely to fight at the chain that binds you...to be Radical...or Revolutionary is to break the chain and walk away.
That so pisses people off they come gunning for you with a vengence.
Malcom was a Radical in the best sense. The word means "to go to the root"...not to fuss around fine tuning and tweaking. He even realized Black Racism against Whites was wrong...and he renounced violence as a means to change right at the end...that's when he really became dangerous and had to be killed.
Violence stops nothing, not for the long haul...therefore Radicals don't believe in violence. Revolutionaries aren't quite Radical enough.
In the 60's and 70's, when crimminal justice was a hot topic...people demonstrated against the legal system and the prisons. Protesting wasn't my way...so what, you say, "Down With The System". Okay...now what? I tried to find an alternative...go to the root of the problem...and I did. I didn't change the system, but I understood it better...saw what the hang up was...that's why two different Sociology Departments at two different Colleges tried to have me removed.
We need us all.
-- signature .
Post a Followup