If the U.S. truly condemned the practices of Gaddafi, then why did the support the dictatorship of Gaddafi? The U.S. will condemn and kill leaders like Saddam Hussein, yet support him if it is in their best interests. It has to be considered that Saddam Hussein was supported by the United States in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1990s to keep the Soviet Union from taking power

http://links.org.au/node/2179 [See this link detailing why the West backs certain leaders, with Gaddafi being the example here]

However, citizens don't realize that the U.S. has almost eradicated Native Americans due to destructive power regimes/the quest for property. Why aren't Native Americans represented more in college admissions? The U.S. has deceptively murdered them and taken away many of their rights.

The U.S. governmental practices has resulted in the killing millions of African Americans whether through slavery, rape, placing drugs in neighborhoods, psychologically robbing them of freedom, and the "criminalization" rhetoric. Yet, we don't examine on our practices. It's one thing to claim allegiance to certain values, but not to practice them is utterly hypocritical.

The government has succeeded in framing and most people have followed with blind allegiance. It many instances because their lives are comfortable.

The econodrawf would not be happy with this analysis: race is one factor that has been used throughout this country's history for economic ends. It is not just race, but racial distinctions are part of the social psychology behind casting that Leff discusses and the econodrawf would resent. The U.S. was founded on it because it was effective in leading to property and power for the few.

It is not about disagreeing in opinion, but not being afraid to recognize the own casting and dramatization that this nation practices and calling out the nation on its practices.

I don't think many people would think it is okay for other nations to attack us, yet the U.S. has killed more people of their lives, spirit and dignity then those nations that we attack. This swindling has to stop. Leff showed us this practice. It is up to us to use it to make the U.S. and this world better. It is up to us to not use it for corruption or to disguise hypocrisy.

I have a hard time accepting that our wars in the Middle East are all inherently unjust and primarily based on racism. Certainly, race may be a factor in the public's acceptance of these wars, but I don't think it is the primary factor or the guiding motivation. In Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, we have overthrown leaders that brutally oppressed women and used chemical weapons against their own people. Qaddafi stole tens of billions of dollars from the Libyan people, enabled terrorist attacks overseas, and was prepared to commit a massacre to stay in power. Perhaps the fact that these leaders were darker skinned played a role in the acceptance, at least initially, of these wars, but I think these qualify as pretty legitimate reasons for overthrowing these regimes. As to whether they made the world a better place, I think the Zhou Enlai quote of "too soon to tell" is quite appropriate. I think simplifying these matters into race is a narrow oversimplification that is no better than the "econodwarf".

I think a bit too much emphasis is being placed on how to persuade others to "the truth" and not enough subjecting ourselves to the same analysis. Assuming others are suffering from cognitive dissonance when they disagree can sometimes be a form of cognitive dissonance itself. Our views on morality are fundamentally shaped by the same social forces that create those views we are in opposition to. While there are simple facts that are hidden by cognitive dissonance, e.g. there is still slavery in America, it is more difficult to say that a person's ideas and morality are a product of cognitive dissonance and not analyze your own the same way. I found this article by Leff, "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law", particularly interesting. The basic premise is that all morality requires assumptions and, in the absence of God, who is to say which principles are superior. I found the end of the article particularly fascinating:

"All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. Given what we know about ourselves and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect; looking around the world, it appears that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror, seems to have worked to make us "good", and worse than that, there is no reason why anything should. Only if ethics were something unspeakable by us, could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.

Nevertheless: Napalming babies is bad. Starving the poor is wicked. Buying and selling each other is depraved. Those who stood up to and died resisting Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and Pol Pot-and General Custer too-have earned salvation. Those who acquiesced deserve to be damned. There is in the world such a thing as evil. [All together now:] Sez who? God help us."

-- DanielKetani - 22 Mar 2012

For example, Eben doesn't have to do what he does. He chooses to express his sincere values on controversial, topics, but demonstrates understanding in meeting each student where he or is in the path to passing the imagination test. He doesn't want to reveal everything at once, but uses judgment in deciding what texts to read and topics to discuss on this path. He argues with us, but doesn't tell us to get out his classroom because we disagree. He plants a seed but a seed that will be "sustained" in memory due to the dramatization, albeit not created but genuine. He is radical and has been extremely effective.

The reason why I started this thread is because there are some issues that people don't speak out on, because they are afraid of societal reaction. They don't take risks and remain safe. They conflate legality with morality and do not truly think for themselves. However, just speaking out on issues that are divisive is radicalism. Remaining silent just exacerbates the problem. No matter what your opinions are on the military, enough people don't speak out about these issues or do not attempt to understand the social psychology and the staging behind what the military does. We applaud the military on airlines because they are "serving" the country, yet use capital punishment or kill someone (e.g. John Brown) who was protecting others against an unjust government. The video spoke of how this casting takes place. America always convinces citizens to fight against darker skinned individuals by creating the other and then attacking countries that it used to support (e.g. Iraq, Libya). If we attempted to attack England, for example, there would be a lot more opposition because the "other" would be harder to create. The government uses the subconscious to tap into many people's sense of "superiority" that is not openly expressed and works constantly to create/sustain this notion.

But not enough people are communicating about these issues and at least discussing their views. Wiki is a great medium, tapping into what the digital age has caused: the loss of the art of in-person conversation, but we cannot lose the latter. Both have to work together.

The kid who died in Florida reminds me of the times that I am confused for being a criminal. I went to a Columbia party last semester and being the only African American in the line, the bouncer asked for my ID. In one of the Columbia housing buildings, I was told to "hold it" by security so they could find out my identity. I could have been shot before too. Even my former students when I taught in the past reminded me that I may be mistaken for a gang member if I wear certain color(s). This "criminal" image has been created of African Americans and purposefully through dramatization and casting. It is so hard to see people die unjustly and in prison disproportionately. It pains me to see people in the Middle East suffering because of American imperialism. I am hoping law school will give me more tools to pass the imagination test. I don't know if I can hear about another Trayvon Martin, keeping in mind there are many cases like his that aren't reported. One of my high school students, when I taught in Oakland, CA, was shot in the head and killed at his 18th birthday party in an area that is festering with violence. Shots were fired outside my school, and even at my deceased student's funeral there were gunshots.

I think it's okay to lead people non-verbally as well ("wink" or nodding for approval") but I am not willing to wait. I have a limited time on this earth and things have to change. When we become too passive, injustice slips through our fingers. Something was planted in me at an early age that has never left me. I have seen so much injustice allowed to go on without much opposition. This has to stop, and the ironic part about it is that it won't take that long if we all use what we have learned and will learn in law school about how to advocate/persuade to fight for justice.

I couldn't continue to see my high school students reading on 4th grading reading levels due to systemic, institutionalized racism/deliberate dumbing down of America's youth. Change will be incremental until the system is changed. I couldn't let my family go another generation without having a college graduate. I couldn't abandon injustice like my father abandoned me. But it's not really about me because my life is a lot better than many people I hear about or see or teach. It's about using what you have to be courageous before it's too late. Before people become "robotic" and reactive instead of proactive.

Radicalism may sound intimidating or taboo, but it's just not being afraid to stand up for what you believe in. It is the best way to solve problems, if done the right way. I truly believe that. I'm tired of waiting. We are the ones we've been waiting for.

I very much enjoyed Toma’s discussion regarding the potential pitfalls inherent in a 'moderate' approach. I consciously choose not to ascribe to any particular political label or position on the ideological spectrum – be it liberal, centrist or conservative. I prefer to look at each political issue both contextually and in isolation to determine for myself what I feel is ‘right’ in each instance, rather then wed myself to a stock, ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ political platform. Would I call this moderate? Probably not. I inevitably end up adopting ideas espoused by the supposedly ‘conservative’ wing on some issues, while steadfastly maintaining views deemed to be ‘liberal’ or even ‘socialist’ on others. I prefer to call it a ‘nuanced’ or ‘pragmatic’ approach, although – I must confess – it is merely an attempt to remain pragmatic, independent, and open-minded, and one I often struggle with in the current political climate.

I also share Michelle’s struggle with determining “when and to what extent being radical is the most effective approach” for inducing social change. While I whole-heartedly respect John Brown’s strength of conviction and courage, Leff’s comments regarding the social psychology of cognitive dissonance makes me question the efficacy of this approach with regards to the art of persuading our opponents that change is necessary. The Sunk Cost Fallacy and the social-psychological concept of cognitive dissonance help to explain why individuals, states and nations – even in the face of opposing moral argument, radical action, or pragmatic rhetoric – adhere to beliefs that we may find to be outrageous, ill-conceived and unfounded. As Leff notes, “after a man has committed himself to a particular course of action, especially if making the decision was important enough to have filled him with great stress when he made it, he will tend to suppress (to the point that he will not even perceive) any information which would tend to indicate to him that he made a mistake, and he will tend to seek out (to the point of inventing) data supportive of the decision he made.” I feel like this speaks particularly well to divisive social issues, or those which induce “great stress” in people who feel forced to choose a 'side'. Once you have committed yourself to a viewpoint on an issue, you have ‘sunk a cost’ and invested in that viewpoint. At the risk of losing face or being lost in a perpetual state of chaotic indecision, you tend to adhere to and actively reinforce that viewpoint, even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.

I think this concept – if true - poses a problem for those who adopt a radical approach to social change as a sustainable, long-term strategy. While useful for shedding light on prevailing social wrongs, I feel as though radicalism may lack the power to persuade those who have sunk a cost in their, perhaps sorely mistaken, beliefs and who consequently cling to those beliefs with a religious zeal in attempt to maintain the comfort of cognitive dissonance and prevent the soul splitting that may inevitably follow enlightened acceptance of an oppositional truth. Perhaps it would be more useful to use the skills we can gain through close inter-personal observation, and the social-psychological principles embedded in human interaction, to ‘incept’ concepts for social change into the minds of the unwilling. If we work to improve our knowledge of human behavior and master the art of persuasion, we may one day be able to simply plant the seeds of an idea of our choosing into the subconscious of our audience members and allow this seed to grow organically into the idea on its own. By employing some of the methods identified by Leff (under non-nefarious pretenses), it might be possible make each audience member think that they arrived at our pre-determined conclusion of their own accord; to believe that – rather than having been persuaded – their free mind met our free mind on a equal playing field.

I see this as finding the precise moment/point/place of effective human interception – the spot where we can apply the least grease to the spokes on the wheel of social change to give it its own dynamic force. Now, I’m not saying that this will work in all cases. A radical approach may be the only feasible option in certain circumstances. But I think that sometimes we may wisely choose not to confront those we are trying to persuade with radical, oppositional argument - from which they may run screaming in attempt to preserve their established cognitive dissonance. Instead, all that may be required is a subtle wink and nod – a proposition that there may be ‘something in our position for them’, from which they may draw their own inferences, form their own conclusions, sink their own costs, and follow the position we have incepted them into believing is organically their own with a renewed passion and fervor.

-- MeaganBurrows - 20 Mar 2012