|
In Reply to: the frog in the pot posted by porceleindoll on July 22, 2002 at 02:13:39:
Where we are coming from (our experience, acquantances, actions) has a lot to do with our views and opinions. The distinctions we make are placed against that background.
SGA may see all or many FGA as a whole class of peole, with little distinctions, except those they knew or learned about. The rest are lumped all together.
The same thing happens with FGA and the so called "leadership". All "leadership" is lumped together with MO, Maria, Peter, etc. except those the FGA knew directly.
Then some people who were close to "leadership" make more specialized discriminations and lump them into WS and non-WS.
It is a chain of pain where we all know not all were everything but it's easy to blame those we don't know because of those we DO know some were NOT "like that".
Funny thing is that when you start placing faces, names and actions together one starts seeing that the vast majority of people were not "like that", whatever that may be.
I say that is wrong to blame a whole class of people for what a few in that class of people did is wrong. This includes blaming all WS, all "leadership", or all FGA. Sometimes this may be necessary in order to identify certain characteristics but not to place blam for acts carried out by individuals unless they had a choice. I also say that it is a weak and sorry way to displace the blame from some into a whole group because otherwise it is too painful to deal with the subject.
The question of "What did they stay" should be asked by children to their parents because when SGAs asked the question, the answers are varied just like asking leaders of old as a group why the did such and such thing. They all have their reasons and they are also varied.
In my opinion, it is not just a matter to ask the right question (which "What did they stay" is) but also asking it to the right person or people otherwise it just dillutes the issue.
