>Perhaps I am too negative on this. But my question is, why are there not
>more leaders on this issue of injustice? Why only one or very few?
>I don't really agree that the vast majority do attack injustice. Some may
>follow, but few take the initiative, and even hundreds of thousands does
>not constitute a majority, let alone a vast majority.
>Don't misunderstand, I am not saying at all that people like and accept
>injustice. I just don't think very many people take action on it. Most
>people would agree that injustice is bad. Few would be able to say why,
>and few actually do anything about it on a day-to-day basis.
>If the vast majority attack injustice -- really attack it, not just
>condemn it, why is there still so much of it?
I can only reply as I did to begin with, namely: Although most people
attack injustice, they may not "attack" in a way that - for you - rises
above condemnation. (In fact, I don't believe most people condemn
injustice, which is verbal behavior requiring a *concept* of
justice/injustice.) The reason there is still so much of it is simply that
those who propagate and defend injustice are far more powerful and pursue
more successful strategies than those who are oppressed by it, despite the
far greater number of the latter.
Rol, in another context you yourself said:
>The most common way most of us -- myself included -- have responded to
>this ... has been with cynicism, and blaming. I now understand what I
>did not before -- they want to do the right thing, but it is not
>intuitively obvious how to do it, and no one provides guidance.
You and I have differing idea about what's going on around us, but we seem
to agree on the function of leadership.
Jack Hirschfeld Nice work if you can get it; and if you get it, won't firstname.lastname@example.org you tell me how?
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <email@example.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>