Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: American Hostages
Message-ID: <1696@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 12:51:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1696
Posted: Fri Aug 23 12:51:12 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 01:06:47 EDT
References: <1042@ihlpg.UUCP> <185@pyuxii.UUCP> <11045@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 52
Xref: watmath net.politics:10656 net.flame:11686

I deleted references to events in Nicaragua.

> Around 1980, the Communist Workers' Party held a 'Death to the Klan'
> rally in Greensboro, North Carolina. In case you hadn't heard, North
> Carolina is the heart of Klan Country. As I recall, members of the CWP
> issued challenges to the Klan to confront them at the rally (I'm sure
> if I'm wrong 800 people will correct me :-). Now, calling for an end
> to the Klan's involvement in North Carolina society may be a political
> action that's admirable. But holding a 'Death to the Klan' rally in
> Greensboro is a clear call for violent confrontation and/or martyrdom
> (I'd also like to point out that at least some CWP members were armed
> and returned Klan fire).
> 
> No one deserves to be shot for expressing his/her political opinions,
> but in the Greensboro case it's pretty clear (at least to me) that
> anyone who's surprised at the results of this march is either naive or
> an opportunist. Is there a qualitative difference between the
> Greensboro situation and the civil rights situations you cited in your
> posting? It seems to me the answer is yes, and the difference is one
> of intent. The CWP people deliberately placed themselves in a
> situation where it was highly likely that (a) the Klan would make an
> appearance and (b) there would be an exchange of gunfire. They may not
> have 'deserved what they got,' but the likelihood of something
> unfortunate happening in that situation was high.
> 
> Righteous indignation seems an appropriate response to me only when
> the victim is an unwilling victim. I find it hard to get worked up
> about 'martyrs' who are deliberately staging a media event.
> 
>                              -- Bill Ingogly

CWP people seem to be nuts.  But to go ahead and claim that we should not
be indignated by the fact that five people were shot to death, is shameful.
In my opinion, CWP wanted to prove that KKK people are beasts, and,
unfortunately, they have proven it.  This fact however was obvious.
CWP wanted also to prove that American judiciary system is a sham. 
That I did not believe, by they have proven it as well.  I really do not
think that Greensboro saga should be remembered as the case of publicity
hungry radicals which got what they deserved.  We should rather remember
that some radicals managed to prove that in America equal protection
under the law does not exists.
Short reminder:  KKK shot 5 people to death, and received some ineffective
return fire.  All involved were aquitted on: murder, exceeding reasonable
limits of self-defence and rioting.  Year earlier, in Tennesee, a robed
KKK member was about to smash the windshield of a car with a black family
inside.  The driver shot him, and received a suspended prison sentence.
Standing conclusion:  in Carolina and Tennessee shoting to KKK is a crime,
shooting to communists is not a crime.
Bill seems te feel good.  I believed in American justice and now I feel
ashamed and naive.

Piotr Berman