Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cornell.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!mf
From: mf@cornell.UUCP (mf)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish,net.motss,net.politics
Subject: Potential invisibility
Message-ID: <1467@cornell.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 09:02:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: cornell.1467
Posted: Fri May  3 09:02:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 01:47:28 EDT
Reply-To: (Uucp) cornell!mf (ARPA) mf@cornell-gvax (Bitnet) MF AT CRNLCS
Organization: Cornell Universe City
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath net.religion.jewish:1893 net.motss:1650 net.politics:8826

Why is it that some groups which are obvious targets of discrimination
get much more attention and outside support than others?  For instance,
many rallies occur these days against apartheid in South-Africa, in
which a great number of the participants are not Black.  On the other
hand, such groups as the Jews or the gays not only do not receive
support from the outside, but very little from the inside too.  It does
not have anything to do with the intensity of the ``oppression,'' for
that to which, for example, the Jews of the Arab countries or the
Soviet Union are subjected to is no picnic.

One common characteristic of these particular two groups is their
potential invisibility; in other words, in most cases, no particular
feature distinguishing them from the general population.  [Aside: those
discriminating against them look for any imaginary distinguishing
feature--for there would be no reason to discriminate if there was no
difference].

This might explain why outsiders to these groups are reluctant to
associate with them in support, lest they be mistakenly take as members
of these groups, with all associated stigmata and opprobrium.  This is
why it is not rare to read or hear such sentences as: ``as a Gentile, I
think...'' in support of Jews.  A friend was telling me yesterday how
uncomfortable he felt when talking in support of gays and how he always
made sure (in subtle ways) that he not be taken for one.  A white
person in a rally for blacks is somehow relatively safer than in a
hypothetical rally for Jews (or gays).

This may also explain the reluctance some of the members of these
groups to react openly to discrimination against their own group: they
can hope to be unnoticed, to blend in the background, and delude
themselves that *they* won't be the target, for nobody will notice
*them*.  As to the Blacks -- they don't have that choice.

Another possible reason for the interest in S.A. may be some glamour
attached to it.  Or rather, a tiredness with other less exciting but
very hard problems.  How many are concerned these days with the famine
in Africa?  *That* problem won't be solved by rallies.  If this view is
correct, it may be that the interest of the public will soon shift yet
to another cause, in search of novelty, without having solved this one,
too.  [Please note that I am in no way saying that fighting apartheid is no
worthy cause, I am speaking of uncommited attitudes]