Post by J. Clarke
Doesn't mean they weren't bigots.
I'm taking the portrait of Jonathan Kent as given in the Superman
comics of the Silver Age. This portrait depicts him as a repository
of every virtue and no vice (well, with the exception of smoking).
But just because he isn't _bigoted_ doesn't mean, by a long shot,
that he is _woke_.
Basically, this indeed is where I expect the dramatic tension in my
scenario to come from.
So I would fully expect Jonathan Kent, in the 1920s or 1930s, to hold
an attitude that was still around in the 1960s - that it just isn't possible
to "impose" racial equality from the outside, one has to wait for
attitudes to change.
This is a viewpoint that is not without validity. But it isn't complete in
itself; it needs to be defended, and the limits of its validity need to be
An immediate reaction to that viewpoint would be to dismiss it on
Of course acts by one person or group of persons that violate the
rights of another person or group of persons can be, may be, and
should be suppressed by force: otherwise, we wouldn't have the
So is it that in the case of racial discrimination, there is... a shortage
of resources? If so, solutions come to mind:
"Just watch me." - Pierre Elliot Trudeau
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse-Tung
Of course, these quotes, particularly the latter, bring to mind another
set of possible concerns. Perhaps one is seeking to satisfy an additional
set of constraints that has not been mentioned.
So, for example:
I read news items about how Coptic Christians are persecuted in Egypt.
Coptic Christians are falsely accused of sexual assault, and are imprisoned
for it without any real investigation.
Muslims commit sexual assault against Coptic Christians, and the charges
Young women from the Coptic Christian community are kidnapped, forced
to "convert" to Islam, and then "married" to the Muslim who took a fancy to
I think this persecution of Coptic Christians should be ended. I see no reason
why it can't be ended, simply by bringing sufficient force to bear.
If the Muslim majority population of Egypt doesn't adapt well to the new
circumstances... well, then their movements can be restricted like those of
Palestinians in Israel. Or they can be removed from Egypt and scattered
to the four winds, those who survive. That's their choice, and I don't particularly
So, of course, if one happens to *care* about the survival of the white population
of states in the Deep South, and one expects those states to continue to exist
as functioning democracies, which implies majority rule (and blacks are the
minority there, even if less so than in some Northern states)...
then, of course, one "can't" impose full equality for black people if nearly all
the white people in those states haven't been won over to the idea.
One doesn't have to be racist, in the sense of thinking that an inferior,
unequal status for black people is right, just, and proper, not to be
particularly bloody-minded about how to do away with said inferior status.
Of course, though, if one isn't willing to put... even a *little* pressure...
on the white community, the criticism can be made that one is
racist in another way: of insufficiently valuing the interests, well-being, and
comfort of black people versus the interests, well-being, and comfort of
Now we're getting to the point where the issue is out in the open,
and perhaps a nuanced political debate is possible.