[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Statism and Civil Rights




On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 jalme@macalester.edu wrote:

i am surprised when intelligent people see things from such a tunnel 
visioned perspective.  I think the civil rights topic is viable, and I 
also think that there are other topics with much merit (personally i like 
SE Asia as well). But I think these criticisms are way off the mark.


> Another reason why civil rights should not be the topic...
> 
> When Matt argues that the biggest negative ground on the civil rights 
> topic is the effectiveness of state/legal reforms (in the generic sense) 
> it makes the topic look WORSE not better.  Why would we want to have 
> generic statism debates all of the time?  Those arguments might be 
> important in some cases but should probably not be the center of negative 
> ground!  

Uhmmmmm you wouldn't. His point, was rather clearly that the real issue 
is some form of macro solution. Socio economic changes can take many 
forms. And the diversity of perspectives about racial issues on this list 
demonstrates the fact that there is a GIGANTIC debate about how to best 
approach these issues. Perhaps the reforms should be piecemeal, perhaps 
we need a revolution. It could be that the best way to address the 
socioeconomic issues is through volunteerism (at least that is what Billy 
would have you believe :)).


> 
> With a year long topic, negative ground has to be more diverse than 
> statism bad on case and some generic disads.  People opposed to the topic 
> have made this complaint about negative ground before and have been 
> sarcastically reasured that they can still run Clinton or whatever.


some posts have been sarcastic, some have not. People will run Clinton 
regardless of the topic as Jim pointed out. I don't think that there is 
any real reason to believe your ground will be so limited. A carefully 
worded topic can address your concerns. And that is an argument that has 
yet to be refuted.


 I 
> don't think that people just want ground for such big generics - the year 
> long topic has given us more room for detailed case debate - let's take 
> advantage of it.  I don't know that we can if we have to argue either 
> 1) racism/sexism/specisim/whateverism good or 2) non-existent or 3) the big 
> alternative of those things existing and being bad but statism stinking 
> too.  
> 


See above. I think this analysis is an oversimplification. Newnam just 
sent us his research on the issue of wording and topic focus. I think 
that his work provides a good basis for addressing your fears.

Jason Jarvis
Wake Forest
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page