Alonzo Fyfe

I am thankful for the helpful comments I received on my past argument. I have made some adjustments and sent it out to a couple of places. So far, no response.

I think that is good -- critics can not come up with an easy response.

Now, I have a new analogy that I would like you people to critique.

***

Imagine, if you will, being the parent of a black child. Each day, you must send that child to school where a sign near the entrance prominently reads (over your country's most patriotic symbol), "In Caucasians We Trust."

Where your child then goes to class, where the teacher leads the students in a ritual where they pledge allegiance to "...one nation, under white
rule...".

Where, nonetheless, even black students typically stand and say this pledge because one can just feel the hostility generated against any student who refuses to participate in a patriotic demonstration -- particularly in times of war.

Where white people argue with disgust that the fact that your child will not be officially punished for not saying the pledge is supposed to make all the difference. By this fact alone, they argue, the pledge does not discriminate.

Where there is not one elected black senator or representative to be found.

Where one black man finally wins a court case arguing that such a pledge violates a provision in the country's constitution that, "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a master race."

And yet congress responds to that decision by creating a site where all of the members of congress, all white, gather on the steps of the capital building to recite the pledge and shout "under WHITE rule." While, at the same time, they vote nearly unanimously on a resolution that says that congress finds it absurd that anybody would claim that the pledge was not racially neutral.

That, furthermore, the pledge must remain unchanged for the sake of unifying the country.

And that there is no contradiction between the words "under white rule" and those portions that talk about one nation, "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

And where white citizens from one end of the country to the other rise in protest that removing these words in the pledge and in the national motto would be to deny all white Americans true equality. Where white citizens claim that a pledge without these words is identical to a pledge to "one nation, under black rule."

It seems strange to think that a country like this could actually exist.

Doesn't it?

simian

I guess I would describe it as strained. You are talking about a visible against a (potential) invisible difference. Unless I choose to inform people, I can remain an anonymous atheist.

That being said:

You could state that some of the members of Congress are part non-white, but passing for white - perhaps that would be the ideal area of comparison for the kid as well.

You could also change "In Caucasians We Trust" in "In Aryans We Trust" to give it a loaded meaning, much like the "in God we trust."

There are probably some other items, but these are the two major ones I see now...

Simian

Gooch's dad

Actually, I like it a lot...but I agree that 'white race' is just a bit too obvious, and many Christians would just say 'oh, that's ridiculous, and doesn't have any relevance'.

What if, instead of 'in Caucasians we trust' it were 'in one race we trust', where that race isn't specifically named, but is understood to be the white race?

See, the common counterargument against 'In God We Trust' is that the Christians say that 'God' means all gods. Of course it doesn't, 'God' is pretty much accepted as the personal pronoun for Jesus' daddy.

Otherwise, I like it a LOT. It reminds me of the 'Kissing Hank's Ass' parable.

Captn Kidd

I like it. It might also be good to mention, near the part about no senators, that in this hypothetical country, that blacks make up more than 10% of the population.

4th Generation Atheist

It's illustrative, but I have my usual shyness about comparing what atheists face in this country with the dilemmas faced by black people---especially where economic issues are concerned. I just can't quite compare my situation at present with that of someone whose ancestors endured generations of slavery followed by generations of economic discrimination, and who still faces this discrimination today. (True, modern blacks aren't slaves; but it is the legacy of slavery that still gives both blacks and whites trouble on this topic.) I may face some, but my situation more closely parallels that of gays, who can't be "open" about their identities without facing trouble; unfair, to be sure, and part of the current fight for equal opportunity and civil liberties, but not quite the same.

That said, I think there is some value to the "let's draw an analogy with something we all understand" tactic; we know that reasonable people would never accept the situation you describe, and hence the speculation can be illustrative. This uses an issue that is familiar to all to make a less familiar one clear. As long as it is very clear that you are using this tactic, I'm a little less shy of it; however, b/c people's emotions can get very intense about the race issue, I'm not sure this clarity is always possible.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]</p>

Sowthistle

Alonzo --

Saw your article in the Colorado Daily today. I was about halfway through it, musing on the power and musicality of your prose when I realized that I had already read it here.

On the use of African-American discrimination as comparision, you will always have someone think you are trying out-victim another group or minimize another group's suffering by comparing to your own -- but I think you carefully draw a pretty clear rhetorical point that allows an equally careful reader to discern the difference.

Great work. Nice to have you in the community.

ST

Alonzo Fyfe

Sowthistle:

Thanks for the compliment. And I thank the people here for their input in helping me write it.

<strong>On the use of African-American discrimination as comparision, you will always have someone think you are trying out-victim another group or minimize another group's suffering by comparing to your own...</strong>[/QUOTE]

I find this to be a question of politics, not of logic. That somebody does not like some element of an otherwise sound analogy is not, in itself, an objection that the analogy is unsound.

And for somebody to assert, "I do not want you to use this analogy because I find being compared to the likes of you distasteful," then this in itself is an assertion of prejudice and not the type of assertion one ought to treat with respect.

I agree with you in that I find claims of the form, "My group has suffered more than your group," to be a bit pathetic.

And I do try to avoid those types of arguments.

But a different sort of argument of the form, "I can demonstrate the wrongness of the discrimination against my group through analogy with the descrimination done to your group," I do not think, falls within that category.

Jayhawker Soule

Under discussion is the value of analogy to communicate cleanly and clearly, not logic. If the analogy raises ancillary questions and/or emotions that get in the way, its efficacy is undermined. That it may well be undermined by attitudes that are less than logical is beside the point.

My concern is that your audience will not, and should not, see 'one nation under God' as disenfranchising nontheists in the same way, or to the same extent, as 'one nation under whites' disenfranchises black Americans.

Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, both. A good argument is a sound/strong argument clearly presented.

The thing about "clearly presented" is that, I have found by experience, the same argument is never equally clear to all listeners. It is useful to try to find different ways of making the same point, in the hopes that those who do not understand one presentation will understand a different one.

I also believe in testing my arguments in order to discover any misunderstandings that may arise. In testing this particular argument -- or versions of it -- among different audiences, I never did encounter the types of problems you are concerned with.

I encountered people worried that others might have these sorts of problems with the argument, but no actual instance of a person actually having that problem.

Given these precautions and the data from these tests, I think that the argument does communicate cleanly and clearly. To most people.

Wyz_sub10

Very good thread, but I'm way too tired to give a thoughtful answer and the attention it deserves.

I will only mention something that a friend of mine who is black said to me when discussing another issue (and using blacks as a comparator) - being black is not a choice, not something you can easily (of at all hide), nto something you can be persuaded to or persuaded from.

These things make a difference when discussing the division of groups.

Not very insightful, I know. I am dead tired and will leave that ball on the ground for someone else to pick up and run with (or punt down the field).