{Racial Separation}[30th March 1987]

[Redbook3:77-79][19870330:0950c]{Racial Separation}[30^th March 1987]

19870330:0950

[continued]

Although in its purest form the a-political approach dictates that they should*, it would be hard to expect Churchmen not to speak out against the evil practices arising from Apartheid. Churchmen are Human, after all, and we all feel the need to speak out against. But it is, I suspect, itself a symptom of Separation – this need to criticise: as soon as the Church takes sides, it loses its unifying position at the top (or bottom**) of the Circles. Another way of looking at it is that Apartheid is so obviously a product of the Separation that the teaching of Christ's message of Unity – with Love, and Harmony – is of itself subversive, and requires no political examples.

The reason why I, in my Separated way, have criticised*** some black leaders here, and not Apartheid, is partly because everyone else is already criticising Apartheid, but no one seems to have grasped the nature of our Black racial politics here (in England). Also, of course, our problem is our problem, nearer to home; and once again what gets up my nose is that I sense on one side a great deal of good will and concern to do the right thing, from spokesmen and politicians, even if betrayed by individual actions; and on the other, unfair speech.

Unfairness in speech – by which I basically mean, I think, well-targeted lies – always seem to upset me even more than foul actions. If we are not true, we are nothing. Or do they believe it? If they believe what is not true, and demonstrably not true, then they are in trouble: has extreme Separation worked its way right into them?

*i.e. should … not? <930331>

**[depending how you look at it]

***[[Redbook3:66-67][19870329:1210q](RACIAL POLITICS (1))[29^th March 1987];[Redbook3:76][19870330:0950a](RACIAL POLITICS (2))[30^th March 1987].]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23122015]