Chapter 14 fourteenth letter

Brother Lu: Hello! It was a pleasure to hear from you.You talked about the racial problems in the United States reflected in the Simpson case. I hope I can introduce more about this aspect.This is also a topic I really want to talk about more, but it is very difficult to explain clearly.Firstly, the topic is too big, and secondly, because it is too complicated, in such a short letter, I can only cover some superficial aspects.But I still hope that I can talk about it as much as possible, so that you can have at least a general impression. These days, the United States is very lively again. Taking advantage of the racial sentiments of black Americans aroused by the Simpson case, a black leader came out to call for more than 30 million blacks to march on Martin Luther King. The reaction to the exhibition today after the anniversary.Point out that historical materialism is not a dogma, but a study of social history, and carry out the same activity again, that is, the "Million Negro March" in Washington again.This immediately aroused the attention and uneasiness of the entire American society.People are worried that at this time, holding such an event will incite greater racial sentiments, and some people even take the opportunity to stir up the hatred of blacks against other races, worrying that so many blacks will gather together to hold a "race" theme Whether or not something similar to riots occurred under the influence of the "group effect", I am even more worried that if there is a riot, if there is another conflict with the police, what kind of social unrest will be caused.People remember how strong emotions, especially among black people, were during the civil rights movement, how easily conflicts arose.The greatness of Martin Luther King lies in his ability to stand on the edge of dry wood, but instead of lighting a pile of fires that can be used, he advocates peaceful and non-violent protest.The problem is that the initiator and organizer of this event is not Martin Luther King. People’s concerns are not without reason, because the leader of this "Millions of Blacks March" is the "Black Islamic State" Farakon, the leader of the organization, mentioned this character in my previous letter.This organization has always had radical views. Falcon himself is also famous for making a lot of anti-Semitic statements. In addition to anti-whites, his statements are also anti-Americans of Vietnamese and Korean descent, and anti-Catholicism. And homosexuality, in short, has always made a lot of enemies.His oratory ability, that is, his ability to mobilize the masses, is also very famous in the United States, where everyone is eloquent.He also invited Simpson and all the black celebrities to the rally.

The scheduled location for this rally is in the center of the US capital, Washington, on the square in front of the Capitol.I think President Clinton and the U.S. government should be the most disturbed, because no matter what troubles arise, the government's troubles are always the first.So can the U.S. government find some reason to stop such an activity?This is impossible.The square in front of the Capitol is a natural "public forum", and "freedom of assembly" is included in "freedom of speech", which falls within the scope of protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution.If the U.S. government shows even the slightest suspicion of obstruction, it will be in far more trouble than just a rally.Therefore, the current U.S. government, no matter how uneasy it is about such a rally, its smartest thing to do is to actively cooperate, provide all conveniences, and put on a generous gesture.You may ask, the U.S. government cannot openly obstruct such an unpredictable "giant rally", so can it make some small moves secretly?

I think this is an irresistible temptation in the heart of every person with a lot of power in their hands.The U.S. government is no exception. It has also gone through such a historical stage and tried to make small moves to save itself trouble.However, under a carefully designed national system like the United States, doing so is very, very dangerous for both the government and the operators.First of all, once it is revealed, it will become an explosive political scandal. There is no need for the people involved to set up their own political careers for this; and in addition, under the system of the United States, it is difficult to avoid that such things will be revealed sooner or later. .I also want to give you a little introduction about the stages that the United States has gone through in history.

As I mentioned earlier, the U.S. government felt the most uncertain about the domestic situation, which was the turmoil in the 1960s. This was also the time when the U.S. government was most likely to take risks in a panic.The ongoing Vietnam War is also an important cause of this turmoil. In 1969, Marxism opposed the theory of genius, but it did not deny genius. It admitted that people were poor in talent. There were two American intellectuals, Bloom and Vasco, who were also active in the civil rights movement and belonged to a group called The organization of the "New Mobilization Committee to End the Vietnam War" planned a large anti-war rally.At that time, they wanted to make the scale of the rally as large as possible, so they went to join the local blacks to participate.However, blacks at that time were more concerned about their equal rights in society.It should be said that they were two different forces in American society at that time, and they were two different sources of turmoil.Their separate "toss" has already caused the US government at that time a headache.The problem is that the U.S. government, like the common people, encountered many new trends, problems, and disturbances in the 1960s for the first time. No one knew where this turmoil would go or how much "damage" it would cause.Therefore, the U.S. government at that time certainly hoped that the situation would not develop out of control. Of course, it hoped that the less disturbing force the better, and the more dispersed the better.

Some black organizations are very supportive of this anti-Vietnam War rally, but the "Black United Front" they really want to unite is not very interested.The organization of large-scale protest rallies often has financial problems. Therefore, the leaders of this "front" proposed that they could mobilize their members to "help out" at white anti-war rallies, but whether white anti-war organizations can Donate something to black people's own rallies, say, they come and get a dollar donation each?To this end, they held a number of consultative meetings. As soon as this idea was put forward, it naturally aroused different opinions in the "new mobilization" organization.One kind of opinion thinks that this can be considered, while another kind of opinion thinks that participation in the civil rights movement is voluntary. Isn't that like paying a "poll tax"?However, in general, the possibility of joint operations by agreement between their two organizations is still very high.

However, at this time, the "New Mobilization" organization received a very rude reminder letter from the "Black United Front", and soon after, the "Black United Front" also found a leaflet commenting on this matter one.Contrary to nominalism, it advocates that the general (universal) is a real existence. In particular, a black monkey is printed in the middle of the leaflet article. The title of the article is "Give them bananas!" After that, the "New Mobilization" organized The anti-Vietnam War rallies went ahead and were successful, but the Black United Front did not attend.Since then, the two organizations have become estranged and alienated.

No one thought that the so-called "reminder letters" and leaflets were the masterpieces of a secret "anti-espionage plan" implemented by the FBI at that time.At that time, the American anti-war and civil rights movement organizations were the targets of their "plan" to interfere and disintegrate.The FBI's plan was established in the late 1960s when the U.S. government felt helpless against domestic turmoil, with the consent of then-Director Hoover.But everyone who came up with this plan knew that if it wasn't done well, it would be a time bomb that they had planted for themselves.Everyone knows the "unconstitutionality" of this practice.However, it is conceivable that the people in the US government who came up with these plans were also in a hurry.In the U.S. Constitution, a very special point is that its implementation does not allow any modification under assumptions.

What does it mean?That is to say, the U.S. government cannot suspend the constitutional rights enjoyed by the people under any circumstances.I remember first noticing this in an American novel I read just after the Cultural Revolution.This novel seems to be called "Code R Secret Document".This kind of book is the standard so-called "best-selling novel" in the United States. It has an intense plot, fascinating and cheap, and is most suitable for killing time while traveling.Writers of best-selling novels aim to make money, and neither they nor the critics consider these best-selling novels to have any high literary value.This book is no exception, very "good looking" and full of tension.The novel assumes that a group of U.S. government officials, headed by the director of the FBI, conspired to pass a bill similar to the emergency state law, hoping to invalidate the Bill of Rights when an emergency state is declared.After all kinds of tense plots, the conspiracy was finally revealed and failed.Only after I arrived in the United States did I realize that this kind of thing, which is very new to me, is an old-fashioned and eternal theme for Americans.This is the issue that people have been wrestling with all kinds of details and the government since the founding of the People's Republic of China, that is, how the US government can ensure that the people enjoy the constitutional rights without exception.

It is precisely because there are no exceptions that when riots continued in the United States in the 1960s, the U.S. government could not use the "emergency" as an excuse to reduce the people's various rights to express their wishes. Also gather together.The famous movie star Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam during the Vietnam War just to demonstrate Christianity or God's revelation. , donned a North Vietnamese military uniform, posed for a photo on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun, and was published in an American newspaper.She has done so outrageously, and the government has nothing to do with her. There is no legal basis to punish her, so it has to let her go.Many people hate her so much that they gnash their teeth with hatred, and at most they can only refuse to watch her movies. This does not prevent her movies from winning Oscars, and the reputation is so far.

In the 1960s, when the situation became more and more uncertain and there were so many civil organizations, the FBI, as an agency specializing in domestic crimes, was indeed under great pressure.They have a mission to maintain the safety of government agencies and the capital Washington, but in the late 1960s, there were at least 4 or 5 "Washington marches" with hundreds of thousands or millions of people every year, and there were countless times that continued almost throughout the year. Smaller rallies are held in plazas near the Capitol, the White House, and the Pentagon, where the Department of Defense is located.Most of the demonstrators are peaceful, but there are also some people who try to enter the Pentagon and climb the fence of the White House. Among them, there are also a few "combat" who are particularly strong, advocating burning bridges, throwing bombs and killing police officers.It is indeed difficult for the FBI to distinguish which people are only threats, and maybe a few of them are actually going to do it.As a result, the FBI finally came up with the wrong strategy and launched this secret project, the main purpose of which was to clarify the situation, but also to do some disgraceful "little tricks".

Precisely because it was a "knowing violation" of the Constitution, which is particularly sensitive to the American people, this plan became one of the top secrets of the FBI at that time, and it was repeatedly emphasized that no leaks were allowed.In fact, the life of this program is very short. In March 1971, an FBI officer had documents stolen, including one that happened to be about the program.As soon as the incident happened, the top officials of the FBI were very nervous and immediately stopped the plan altogether.At this time, the plan already has five branches. Judging from these five branches and their activities, their purpose is indeed to alleviate potential riots, violence and turmoil, and to reduce the pressure on society in this regard.In their activities there is really no particular racial or opinion bias. For example, their targets include black racist radical organizations, as well as the Ku Klux Klan and various organizations known as "hateful whites".Members of this secret program of the FBI have even taken control of some grassroots organizations of the Ku Klux Klan and are constantly dissuading its members from taking violent actions.Their goals at the time were not clear. Most of them opposed "Young Marx" and "Old Marx". The scope of the organizations and individuals investigated is very wide, that is to say, the constitutional rights of countless "individuals" have been violated. Since this plan was not implemented for a long time, the FBI was afraid of being exposed, and took the initiative to stop the entire plan in time. Therefore, the problem has not been known to the outside world for the next four years.Until 1975, the Senate of the U.S. Congress held hearings for a Senate committee that studied the operations of government intelligence agencies.The chairman of this committee is Senator Church, so people call it the "Church Committee."They found that the FBI violated the constitutional rights of citizens in a large number of acts, such as breaking up demonstrations, wiretapping, checking letters, checking bank balances, and even looking at private trash. All of this proves that when the U.S. government requested the establishment of such a national investigation agency, the problems that the American people were most worried about about an agency of this nature have indeed happened one by one as expected.This is why the U.S. Congress would rather not catch criminals if they escaped a state than to allow the government to establish a national police agency.I once told you that it was not until more than 100 years after the founding of the United States that Congress reluctantly agreed to the establishment of a 20-person FBI.This type of institution has always been the place where the American people are most worried, because it is the easiest to go astray. Bloom, the leader of the anti-Vietnam war "new mobilization" organization I mentioned earlier, did not know that they had been targeted by the FBI until they read the reports of the congressional hearings.So, they decided to go to court to sue.However, they also only heard about this secret program called the Sophists.The Sophists also translated "Sophists", which originated from this. , as plaintiffs, they don't even know which specific people in the FBI they should be prosecuting.In the end, they still found the names of five people as their defendants from the newspaper reports of the congressional hearings. Their case didn't go well at the beginning because they didn't have much evidence in their hands.They can only find the general information of the FBI, but they cannot see the files of this secret plan. This is one of the reasons why organizations like the FBI are easy to lose control.In a country like the United States, where the Constitution is supreme, this secret plan was born and existed for several years, and it can violate the constitutional rights of a large number of citizens. There is a certain fluke mentality.In fact, its secrecy system did allow it to successfully escape public supervision for a time. However, we have seen that, after all, this situation is easier to correct under the American system than in some other countries.First of all, the people who do it are very aware of this system and the possible consequences of doing so, and they are very guilty.In fact, that's why the program will abort itself.Secondly, the more heavily curtained and seemingly impenetrable a government agency is, the more it will be sternly watched by Congress.This mutual restraint mechanism makes it only a matter of time before this kind of problem is exposed in the United States.Therefore, it should be said that it was inevitable that it was eventually exposed by the "Church Committee" of Congress. After the "Church Committee" uncovered the FBI's illegal facts, the U.S. Congress finally passed a "Freedom of Information Act."Under this bill, the secret archives of the FBI must be made public and subject to supervision.Therefore, after the implementation of this law, the case of the "New Mobilization" organization was also saved from a dead end, because they obtained 13,000 pages of documents related to them in this secret project according to law. After reviewing these documents, they realized that during the implementation of this secret plan, their phones had been tapped and their bank accounts had been checked. However, they only had some commonalities in their thinking tendencies. For example, they all noted that their Neighbors and friends were called to talk.More importantly, they found that the failure of the anti-war rally with the black "front" organization was originally a small trick of the FBI's forged letters.When their lawyers reviewed the files, they also found some problems outside of their case.For example, in the 1950s, the FBI had a similar plan to investigate the American Communist Party.Also, in the rallies of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the FBI used some tricks to disrupt the rallies of other organizations, such as using walkie-talkies to mislead the parade, and so on. In the end, the jury declared that several FBI defendants who were specifically involved in the "secret plan" were guilty, and the amount of damages amounted to more than 700,000 US dollars.They cried out that they were wronged, and they argued that, for them, it was just business.However, since 1971, U.S. law has required public servants to bear legal responsibility for their conduct in the performance of public duties. There is only one exception, that is, when civil servants perform public duties, they firmly believe that they do not violate the Constitution. sue.In this case, the defendants could not convince the jury of that. At the time of their appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that any attempt by the government to dismantle and destroy a legitimate organization, or to intimidate its members, is absolutely unconstitutional. After a protracted investigation, the defendants were largely retired at the time of sentencing.Hoover, the original FBI director, has also been dead for nearly ten years.The retired defendants didn't have much savings and couldn't afford to lose money at all.In the end, until 1986, the two parties reached an out-of-court agreement between Epiktetos (about 66—?), Marcus Aurelius (Marcus AuF), who reduced the number of reparations, and also agreed that the FBI would pay for its former employees In the future, as one of the defendants, Charles Brennan, who used to be the head of the Department of Homeland Security at the FBI headquarters, said that he believes that the FBI will never try to revive this type of program in the future up. In fact, what is important is not whether the FBI still wants to do this and whether it dares to do so. What is important is that after such a historical period, the US laws to prevent organizations like the FBI from infringing on civil rights It is more robust, and the mechanism for placing these privileged institutions under supervision without exception is more complete.That is to say, the key is to ensure from the system that even if Hoover reincarnates and becomes the chief, the "secret plan" will not work. Looking back at such a period in American history, I always find it informative.Taking a closer look at the unconstitutional interference with the rally by the FBI at that time, their actions were still quite cautious, and the range of actions was still very limited.They were nervous about the chaotic situation at the time, so it seemed understandable for them to deviate.In times of social turmoil, is it justifiable to do so?The U.S. Supreme Court has this view on this type of issue.They believe that protecting individual rights, especially basic rights like freedom of assembly, is easy to do in calm times and social stability.However, it is much more difficult to do this in times of social crisis.However, it is precisely at this time that the people should have the right to assemble and speak out, so that they have the opportunity to express an opinion that is different from the orthodox view at the time.As early as 1937, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote this passage: "Some people will incite to violently overthrow our system, and we should guide society safely from such incitement. However, the more we realize The importance of doing so, the more we should uphold the inviolability of constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Persistence in doing so is precisely so that we can accomplish the social changes we require through peaceful means. Several For centuries, the republic has been built on this point, and this is the true foundation of a government established by the constitution." So, is this justice too naive and too idealistic?Are complex social transformations and social upheavals taken too simply? Looking back at the United States in the 1960s, the demand for civil rights for blacks was at least the "unorthodox view" of the southern states of the United States, and the demand for getting rid of the Vietnam War was definitely an "unorthodox view" that was contrary to the policies formulated by the US government at that time. View".But for the first time published in full.Included in Volume 3 of The Complete Works of Marx and Engels.In the book, from today's standpoint, everyone will see that these two "unorthodox views" of the American people undoubtedly represent an irreversible historical trend.Fortunately, despite the problems of the FBI, the general tendency of the United States to abide by the Constitution basically guarantees the free expression of such "unorthodox views" among the people, which also makes the justice in the 1930s very ideal. The prophecy has basically come true.The United States has undergone a huge transformation, and all aspects of thought, art, concept, and spiritual outlook have been affected by this transformation.If the U.S. government adopted a policy of compulsory banning at that time, it would not prevent this social change, but would only intensify the conflict.Fortunately, under the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, this change was largely accomplished through peaceful means. Therefore, although the U.S. government may feel uneasy about today's million-strong black march, it is much more relaxed than it was more than 30 years ago.On the day of the parade, I was also very interested, because we missed the million-dollar black march "Walk to Washington" led by Martin Luther King more than 30 years ago, and I really want to see what is going on today.Although this parade was held after the Simpson case, it is estimated that black racial sentiments were at their highest, but people can clearly see that the United States has made significant progress in dealing with racial issues in the past 30 years .The atmosphere of the whole rally was very relaxed and happy, just like a grand festival. In the United States, there are countless "ethnic minorities", but the most conspicuous racial issue is the relationship between whites and blacks.First of all, because blacks are the race with the highest proportion of the population, accounting for 11.8% of the total population in the United States (Asians only account for 3.1%), and secondly, any racial issue usually always takes white people as a reference object.On the one hand, the number of whites is large (accounting for 74% of the population), and they are dominant at all levels. On the other hand, whites and blacks have had a period of feud between slave owners and slaves in American history.In fact, there may be another reason, which is the strong contrast in their appearance. Regarding the racial issue in the United States, I don't want to expand in such a short letter. I just want to break a simple traditional story of "racial discrimination".Because in fact, from the United States through the civil rights law, the main works that legally prohibit racial segregation are "Instrumental Theory", "Physics", "Ethics", and passed the affirmative action to protect the rights of minorities including blacks. It has been more than 30 years since I went to school and got a job.I just want to tell you that today's racial and black issues in the United States are not a simple and logical issue like one plus one equals two. For example, the "affirmative action" that I have mentioned several times. It was established more than 30 years ago to guarantee blacks (primarily in the South) the same opportunity to advance to higher education and career advancement amid chronic inequality in educational opportunity.Therefore, it stipulates that in government agencies and schools, etc., there must be a hard indicator ratio on race in terms of recruitment and recruitment.For example, if the post office has ten staff members, two of them must be ethnic minorities.The same goes for college admissions.At that time, except for some racist whites, most whites and other minorities who were also beneficiaries agreed with this bill.But more than 30 years later, some situations have become ambiguous.This year, the University of California first proposed to eliminate affirmative action in admissions, which is a reflection of this change.Does advocating the abolition of the affirmative action mean that racism is on the rise?It seems that the problem is not that simple.The positive effect of affirmative action is obvious at a glance, so I won't explain it further.I would like to talk about the problems it raises so that you can understand the complexity of the problem. One of the original intentions of affirmative action was to overcome resentment and prejudice.However, in the process of implementation, such results were accidentally produced in some places.In Birmingham, Alabama, a standard southern city, its fire department hired its first black firefighter in 1968 and the second eight years later.However, before 1981, the fire brigade did not have a black officer-level figure. In 1981, the city's first black mayor signed a consensual decree into local ordinance, which began strictly enforcing a one-to-one ratio of blacks to whites in hiring and promotions.Under this measure of equal rights, another continuous "inequality" has been created in this fire brigade.For example, in the promotion test in 1983, in order to "equal rights", the city government selected two whites who took the first and second places in the test, and then skipped the other 76 whites and promoted three blacks. Below these 76 white scores, it is the highest score among blacks.The official rank itself also involves the promotion of salary. After a few years, the white firefighter who passed the exam finally went to court.In April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an appeals court ruling in favor of whites, arguing that the local law violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Constitution's "due process" provisions.This is just an extreme example, however, similar problems abound.Sometimes it's not even just white people who are affected. After more than 30 years, the ethnic minorities have also undergone different changes.For example, if the University of California abolishes the "Affirmative Action", who will suffer and gain?The survey shows that if racial factors are no longer taken into account when recruiting students, the Three People's Principles was written by Sun Yat-sen in modern times.The author gave four speeches in Guangzhou in 1924, and the proportion of white students hardly changed, only a very small increase.The largest reductions in enrollment will be among black and Latino students, with the only clear beneficiaries being Asian American students in the United States.That is to say, when the "Affirmative Action Act" that is being implemented in this school district is implemented, one ethnic group actually occupies the quota of another ethnic group. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that preferential treatment based on race is almost always unconstitutional.However, this is a historical burden of the United States, and the Supreme Court is not asking to stop this practice, but asking not to be too lenient in its implementation.From this ruling and simple logical thinking, we can all know that a bill like the "Affirmative Action Act" can only be a historical document, and its end of life is a matter of time.When historical conditions gradually improve, every immigrant and every minority must rely on their own abilities and efforts to gain something here. "Affirmative Action" gave all minorities a chance to adjust and improve, and it is a wise thing to seize such an opportunity, otherwise the opportunity will pass. Race issues are very sensitive in the United States.A well-known Chinese-American writer once wrote an article, calling the United States a "self-deprecating country", because the deepest impression on an immigrant in the United States is that the overall atmosphere is very relaxed, so relaxed that other countries will accuse it of superficiality the point.From the president to the common people, they always joke first, and often make fun of themselves, so-called self-deprecating.But, as the writer also quickly discovered, there was an exception to this situation, and that was the exclusion of minorities in the United States.There are a lot of comedians in the United States, who spout out witty words every day, but generally speaking, they only dare to laugh at white people. Once they accidentally go off and laugh at a black person or a Latino Asian, it is likely to be "unbearable." Walk".Maybe there will be a lawsuit. Not only that, but in fact, white people in America became two parts.Some people are still racists, they make their racist remarks, but Charles Louis Dumas (CharlesLouisDumas, 1765-1813) and so on.In Germany, the situation is gone, they are not the mainstream speech in this society.Most other whites, especially liberal whites, unknowingly carry a historical burden there for a distant "white slave master" who seems to be their taken-for-granted common ancestor.They absolutely dare not talk about the problems of black Americans in public, lest they be called "racists."And minorities in the United States, including blacks, are absolutely unwilling to talk about their problems in a public forum where all races can be seen and heard.I am afraid that I will be "discriminated against" by others because of this.This has almost become a "cycle" in the United States.The more we do not face up to and correct these weaknesses, the more problems we have, and the more problems we have, the less we dare to touch them.In any case, this only shows that the United States has not yet been able to "relax" on this issue.However, a race that dare not reflect on itself and face up to its own weaknesses will not be truly healthy and strong, nor will it be truly respected.Therefore, more than 30 years later, when the black people in the United States once again held the "Million People's March", this rally showed its special significance.In the United States, this is the first time that so many black people across the country gathered together for a rally. The theme was not to protest the injustice of white people and American society, but to face and face up to their own problems.It calls for black men to participate, and the theme is "a holy day of atonement, reconciliation and responsibility."At the rally, representatives of black children stood in front of the people of the United States and appealed to all black adults who participated in the rally and those who did not, "stop drugs, stop crime, stop abuse" and give us a healthy environment for growth.Although Farakon's several-hour-long speech contained a lot of logical confusion, and he still explained history with extreme views. Although his speech was still considered by many people to be playing political tricks and trying to improve his reputation, he, after all, Clear message to black people across America: You have nothing in particular to do, all you have to do is go back to your community, make it better, make it safer, make it a place where place to live.You don't just blame the white people, you have to start from yourself, take responsibility, build your own business, build your own economy, quit all kinds of bad habits, quit violence and drugs, respect "make the future for me" wife. This rally, because its promoter, Farrakhan, is a notoriously anti-Semitic "racist" and a notoriously extreme speaker, greatly weakened the repercussions of this rally, but I still feel that this is an important historical event for black Americans. In fact, slavery is an evil of a social system, not a race, but in the United States, at a historical stage, it is connected with race.At that time, slave owners were basically white, and slaves were basically black.However, today, it is not reasonable to associate the evils of this system with race too much, even in the United States, which has such a historical burden.Many kind-hearted young white Americans still have a sense of guilt towards Indians and blacks. Talking to them, they are even more reluctant than I am to mention the "problem" of blacks. They subconsciously I always feel that all the "problems" of black people are caused by white people including myself. My friend Laura is a typical example.There are also some people who feel very wronged.For example, my friend Jamie said to me with grievances: "Why do you say that white people are slave owners? My ancestors were also poor when they immigrated. The poorest Irish people, (Irish immigrants in the The United States was once famously poor), and they were also slaves. Besides, how did the whites buy the blacks, but their black slave owners sold them!" What he said is indeed true.After listening to a talk show by a black host, I realized that, in fact, in the history of the United States, there have been free black slaveholders.From this, you can see that this is an institutional evil, not one that is specifically tied to a race, but the history of America burdens both black and white. 作为一个有过被白人奴役历史的民族，终于能够抛开历史的心理负担，从重建自己的角度寻求在这个社会的平等和自由，这是非常不容易的。尽管要真正做到这一点，还有很长的路要走获、效果和事实。把理论、概念看作是行动的工具，是人在，但是能够站到这个起点上，不能不说是一个历史性的进步。 我想到，曾经听过一位在这里移民几十年的华裔长者说，当初华裔美国人在这里能够得到法律上的平等地位，还是仰仗了黑人的民权运动。在今天，依然有一批黑人在思考平等和自由的问题时，走在华裔美国人的前头。我想起著名的现代黑人女诗人玛雅.安吉鲁给她的学生提出的问题：人是不是需要解放自己？人是不是需要解放别人？人能不能够不解放别人只解放自己？人能不能不解放自己只解放别人？仔细想想，这真是很有意思。在考虑种族问题的时候，所有的人，不论他是哪一个族裔，似乎都可以先考虑一下安吉鲁的问题。 这次黑人大集会，整整一天美国首都华盛顿几乎都工作停顿，因为交通基本中断了。现在美国最著名的黑人领袖杰西.杰克逊讲了话，黑人女诗人玛雅.安吉鲁也在大会上朗读了她的诗作。但是辛普森并没有出席，我想他没有出席的原因之一，是他自己也知道，即使在黑人中间，仍有很多人认为他是有罪的，他没有必要冒险出现在任何公众场合，他还吃不准公众对他的反应。 另一个大家关心是否会出席集会的人物，是美国前参谋长联席会议主席，也就是掌实权的三军指挥官，黑人鲍威尔将军。这个时候，他是全美国调查下来声望最高的一个政界人物。美国人都在期望明年他出来竞选总统。民意调查说明之心人皆固有，不可更变，万物均包罗于人心之中。强调一，比起现在的克林顿总统，以及作为克林顿对手一些共和党领袖，鲍威尔在民众中的支持率都要高得多。民意调查中还有一个有意思的情况，就是在黑人中，有更多的人支持克林顿，而在白人中间，却有更多的人支持这个黑人将军鲍威尔。最终，他没有出席这个颇受争议的法拉肯召集的黑人集会，他回避了。 因为这不是一个主流社会的集会，而且还是一个有争议的集会。除了它的召集人使人感到不放心之外，还由于它提出要黑人男子参加，而被包括一些黑人学者在内的人们，斥之为“性别歧视”。一些自由派攻击它是保守的，但是一名保守派的谈论节目主持人，又因为他在电视播放的集会中，只看到一面国旗，而且是倒挂的，为此愤怒不已。可是，不论这个集会产生怎样的争议，这些人有权利站在这个广场上，表达他们的喜怒哀乐，这就是美国宪法的精神和原则。不仅是集会，连集会以后人头数得不对都不行。当华盛顿的公园管理局宣布他们估计集会人数为40万的时候，法拉肯还不干了，宣称要向法院控告，说是公园管理局有意低估了集会的人数，是种族主义。结果，当局只能采用可能找到的科学手段，尽可能精确地为他重新估算。最后算下来的结果大约是80万人左右，法拉肯因此又争回一口气来。 我又想起他站在台上，周围站着一圈保镖。这家伙可真是能说。法拉肯当然也知道，在这个国家很多人都不喜欢他。但是，看来他还是满喜欢这个国家。在集会上，他就是这么说的。因为，他说，只有美国，会让我站在这里，说出我想说的话来，虽然，你们也许并不喜欢我。你说，这是不是挺有意思的？就写到这儿吧。谢谢你给我们寄来了小田田的画儿，画得好极了。 wish it is good! Linda