dr.guy,
everyone is invited, of course, to speak as openly and freely as they are able. as you can see by the sorts of responses this article received, no-one seemed to feel they didnt have the right to speak freely.
theres a decent possibility that i was pontificating. as much as i enjoy calculating odds, ill leave that one to the jury. my feeling is that this type of article is neither more nor less preachy than an average joeuser article, and that the, er, intensity of the responses i received was intended to be just that: intense. and youre right, drguy. i certainly didnt open the "dialogue" in the way i had hoped.
i have no doubt that joeuser being what it is--a forum for folks to work up a strong voice and to point fingers every which way that fingers point--that we will see variations on both perspectives, aplenty. as for this particular post, im willing to let it die, or continue in the direction i had hoped from the beginning, toward the discussion about why our perspectives are the way they are, why race is the issue that it is, and what role, if any, our historical, contextual limits play in the racial divide.
i have been away from ju for a long while, and im not sure what sort of articles youre writing these days. i have no idea who is responding to your posts, what sort of responses you receive. but sometimes folks show their emotions before they show their logic. if they do that in response to your articles, perhaps you are willing to let them flame alone, or perhaps you get angry yourself. probably some mixture of the two.
i hope this discussion re-groups itself. my interest in postmodernism is still kicking, and racial issues are always relevant.
tbt
